- Original Message -
From: "Andy Bierman"
To: "Lou Berger"
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 8:56 PM
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Lou Berger wrote:
>
> > On 10/27/2017 01:20 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > > Why do we
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Lou Berger wrote:
> On 10/27/2017 01:20 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > Why do we come up with such rules in the first place? It really
> > depends on the modules and their relationship and it is the
> > responsibility of the WG, the
On 10/27/2017 01:20 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> Why do we come up with such rules in the first place? It really
> depends on the modules and their relationship and it is the
> responsibility of the WG, the authors, the reviewers to produce a
> reasonable document.
>
My personal view -
Why do we come up with such rules in the first place? It really
depends on the modules and their relationship and it is the
responsibility of the WG, the authors, the reviewers to produce a
reasonable document.
/js
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 06:08:31PM +0100, t.petch wrote:
> Lou
>
> Suggested
Hi,
I do not agree that 6087bis should contain every micro-managed detail
that could possibly pertain to YANG, such as what section the
YANG diagram belongs in, or what exact pyang settings should be
used in every possible usage scenario.
It seems obvious that a 36 page tree diagram for a 47
Lou
Suggested text
NEW
3.3 One Document Several Modules
When a document contains several YANG modules, all the tree diagrams
should be placed together, before all the modules. Each tree diagram
should be preceded by a brief introduction to highlight where one tree
diagram ends and another
Tom,
On 10/27/2017 7:08 AM, t.petch wrote:
> Lou
>
> On a slightly different tack, so a slightly modified Subject: line,
> when an I-D contains multiple modules, some place all the models
> together and then all the modules, e.g.
> draft-hares-i2nsf-capability-data-model-04 while others
Juergen,
On 10/27/2017 7:57 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 07:04:24AM -0400, Lou Berger wrote:
>>> We should encourage authors to split large diagrams into manageable
>>> pieces. Sometimes suppressing lots of statistics counters helps,
>>> sometimes showing which
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 07:04:24AM -0400, Lou Berger wrote:
>
> > We should encourage authors to split large diagrams into manageable
> > pieces. Sometimes suppressing lots of statistics counters helps,
> > sometimes showing which groupings are used instead of their expansion
> > helps. Sometimes
t;
> =
> end of diagram
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Lou Berger" <lber...@labn.net>
> To: <netmod@ietf.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 2:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [netmod] I-D Action:
> draft-ietf
Lou
On a slightly different tack, so a slightly modified Subject: line,
when an I-D contains multiple modules, some place all the models
together and then all the modules, e.g.
draft-hares-i2nsf-capability-data-model-04 while others intersperse the
models and the modules, e.g.
On 10/27/2017 6:51 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 06:00:50AM -0400, Lou Berger wrote:
>> Juergen,
>>
>> Keep in mind this is guidance, so autos may include a long tree even if the
>> text says don't. So what do you want them to do if they decide they really
>> want a
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 06:00:50AM -0400, Lou Berger wrote:
> Juergen,
>
> Keep in mind this is guidance, so autos may include a long tree even if the
> text says don't. So what do you want them to do if they decide they really
> want a many page tree? leave the long tree in the body???
>
What
On October 27, 2017 3:44:39 AM Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Robert Wilton wrote:
On 26/10/2017 17:50, t.petch wrote:
> Lou
>
> I like the advice that diagrams should be one page long but wonder how
> to apply that to those I see in routing WGs. I have just
Juergen,
On October 26, 2017 7:43:18 PM Juergen Schoenwaelder
wrote:
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 07:03:11PM -0400, Lou Berger wrote:
As tree diagrams are intended to provide a simplified view of a
module, diagrams longer than a page should
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 07:03:11PM -0400, Lou Berger wrote:
>
>As tree diagrams are intended to provide a simplified view of a
>module, diagrams longer than a page should generally be avoided. If
>the complete tree diagram for a module becomes too long, the diagram
>can be split
On 10/26/2017 6:17 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 01:32:45PM -0400, Lou Berger wrote:
>
>>> But what practical advice can we give them?
>> we added section 3.2 covering Long Diagrams in general, and due to this
>> draft we added:
>>
>>When long diagrams are
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 01:32:45PM -0400, Lou Berger wrote:
> > But what practical advice can we give them?
>
> we added section 3.2 covering Long Diagrams in general, and due to this
> draft we added:
>
>When long diagrams are included in a document, authors
>should consider whether
Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de>;
> Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com>
> Cc: netmod@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams-
> 02.txt
>
> From another thread in NETCONF, Juergen writes:
>
>
Hi Tom,
On 10/26/2017 12:50 PM, t.petch wrote:
> Lou
>
> I like the advice that diagrams should be one page long but wonder how
> to apply that to those I see in routing WGs. I have just been looking
> at
>
> draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo-12
>
> where the diagram is 36 pages long - which may
> On Oct 26, 2017, at 9:50 AM, t.petch wrote:
>
> Lou
>
> I like the advice that diagrams should be one page long but wonder how
> to apply that to those I see in routing WGs. I have just been looking
> at
>
> draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo-12
>
> where the diagram is 36
On 26/10/2017 17:50, t.petch wrote:
Lou
I like the advice that diagrams should be one page long but wonder how
to apply that to those I see in routing WGs. I have just been looking
at
draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo-12
where the diagram is 36 pages long - which may be one of the larger ones
Lou
I like the advice that diagrams should be one page long but wonder how
to apply that to those I see in routing WGs. I have just been looking
at
draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo-12
where the diagram is 36 pages long - which may be one of the larger ones
but by no means exceptional - and I
;
> Cc: netmod@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams-
> 02.txt
>
> From another thread in NETCONF, Juergen writes:
>
> I do not know whether the official tree diagram formats will
> have ways to show say a container w
>From another thread in NETCONF, Juergen writes:
I do not know whether the official tree diagram formats will
have ways to show say a container with used groupings collapsed.
This may actually be useful sometimes, but this is not what you
are look for here either. I am thinking about
While the tree diagram ID has only informative references, I
think this is actually not true. I think RFC7950, RFC 8040 and
I-D.ietf-netmod-schema-mount are actually normative references
since they define the nodes we are talking about.
If so, this ID depends on schema mount. Not a problem but
Hi Lou,
Do you know when the plan is to call WG LC on this draft? It is another
draft that would be good to get out of the door so that all the drafts
that define YANG modules can reference it.
Thanks,
Rob
On 25/10/2017 14:13, Lou Berger wrote:
Hi,
This version addresses all known
Hi,
This version addresses all known / open issues in the draft known to
the authors.
The changes are as follows:
- Added groupings and yang-data descriptions
- Added Comments, Long Diagrams and Security Considerations sections
- Clarified representation of schema mount points and
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Network Modeling WG of the IETF.
Title : YANG Tree Diagrams
Authors : Martin Bjorklund
Lou Berger
Filename:
29 matches
Mail list logo