Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll draft-lhotka-netmod-yang-markup-00

> On 1 May 2017, at 17:08, Kent Watsen wrote: > > > This concludes the 2-week adoption poll for yang-markup. There does not seem > to > be sufficient interest to move this draft forward at this time. These results > are similar to comments in the Chicago meeting. I

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll draft-lhotka-netmod-yang-markup-00

This concludes the 2-week adoption poll for yang-markup. There does not seem to be sufficient interest to move this draft forward at this time. These results are similar to comments in the Chicago meeting. Let's keep this one on the back burner for now. Thanks, Kent (and Lou) --ORIGINAL

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll draft-lhotka-netmod-yang-markup-00

Hi Lada, On 20/04/2017 13:28, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: Kent Watsen writes: All, We're a couple days away from the 2-week window. As of now, the majority does not support adopting this draft. Any remaining opinions? Lada, The objections seem to be concern for net

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll draft-lhotka-netmod-yang-markup-00

> On 21 Apr 2017, at 13:14, Jonathan Hansford wrote: > > I understand the primary need is to make the YANG modules accessible to > readers, but some simple markup is identical to how text might be formatted > when only raw ASCII is available (e.g. when using a simple

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll draft-lhotka-netmod-yang-markup-00

I understand the primary need is to make the YANG modules accessible to readers, but some simple markup is identical to how text might be formatted when only raw ASCII is available (e.g. when using a simple email client) yet, when rendered as markup, the resulting text is easier on the eyes of

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll draft-lhotka-netmod-yang-markup-00

Kent Watsen writes: > All, > > We're a couple days away from the 2-week window. As of now, the > majority does not support adopting this draft. Any remaining > opinions? > > > Lada, > > The objections seem to be concern for net readability, and for the > importance of the

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll draft-lhotka-netmod-yang-markup-00

All, We're a couple days away from the 2-week window. As of now, the majority does not support adopting this draft. Any remaining opinions? Lada, The objections seem to be concern for net readability, and for the importance of the problem relative to other activities. For the former case,

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll draft-lhotka-netmod-yang-markup-00

Phil Shafer writes: > Andy Bierman writes: >>IMO it is more robust not to assume people never see the real YANG >>statements. > > Exactly. We made YANG readable so that we wouldn't _need_ to view > it using tools. This was one of the "insta-death" factors for UML. I have to

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll draft-lhotka-netmod-yang-markup-00

Robert Wilton writes: > On 13/04/2017 17:08, Andy Bierman wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 5:45 AM, Ladislav Lhotka > > wrote: >> >> >> > On 13 Apr 2017, at 13:34, t.petch >

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll draft-lhotka-netmod-yang-markup-00

Andy Bierman writes: > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > >> >> > On 13 Apr 2017, at 18:08, Andy Bierman wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 5:45 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> > >> > >

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll draft-lhotka-netmod-yang-markup-00

Andy Bierman writes: >IMO it is more robust not to assume people never see the real YANG >statements. Exactly. We made YANG readable so that we wouldn't _need_ to view it using tools. This was one of the "insta-death" factors for UML. Thanks, Phil

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll draft-lhotka-netmod-yang-markup-00

On 18/04/2017 17:31, Andy Bierman wrote: On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 2:32 AM, Robert Wilton > wrote: On 13/04/2017 17:08, Andy Bierman wrote: On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 5:45 AM, Ladislav Lhotka >

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll draft-lhotka-netmod-yang-markup-00

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 2:32 AM, Robert Wilton wrote: > > > On 13/04/2017 17:08, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 5:45 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > >> >> > On 13 Apr 2017, at 13:34, t.petch wrote: >> > >> > >> > -

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll draft-lhotka-netmod-yang-markup-00

On 13/04/2017 17:08, Andy Bierman wrote: On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 5:45 AM, Ladislav Lhotka > wrote: > On 13 Apr 2017, at 13:34, t.petch > wrote: > > > - Original Message -

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll draft-lhotka-netmod-yang-markup-00

Ladislav Lhotka writes: >leaf foo { >description "This is my *favourite* leaf."; >type string; >} > >you may not like it, but it is absolutely legal and IMO also readable by >humans. As William previously mentioned, some communities are already doing >similar things. The principal aim of

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll draft-lhotka-netmod-yang-markup-00

On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > On 13 Apr 2017, at 18:08, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 5:45 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > > > On 13 Apr 2017, at 13:34, t.petch

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll draft-lhotka-netmod-yang-markup-00

On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 5:45 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > > On 13 Apr 2017, at 13:34, t.petch wrote: > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Andy Bierman" > > Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 5:44 PM > > > >> On Wed, Apr 12,

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll draft-lhotka-netmod-yang-markup-00

On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 08:13:50AM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > > If you want to ignore the extension proposed by this draft in your tools, you > are free to do so. Other people may want to use this extra information. > As a human, I can't ignore markup thrown at my eyes. /js -- Juergen

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll draft-lhotka-netmod-yang-markup-00

> On 12 Apr 2017, at 18:44, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 6:02 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder > wrote: > I think it is crucial that descriptions etc. remain human readable > using plain text readers. Having to run a

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll draft-lhotka-netmod-yang-markup-00

Robert Wilton writes: > Yes/support. But with the condition that I would still like the draft > to define a basic common subset of markdown fields/annotations that > implementations would be expected to support. For clarity, I'm not > suggesting that the draft should

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll draft-lhotka-netmod-yang-markup-00

Yes/support. But with the condition that I would still like the draft to define a basic common subset of markdown fields/annotations that implementations would be expected to support. For clarity, I'm not suggesting that the draft should define a new markdown language, I think that it would

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll draft-lhotka-netmod-yang-markup-00

> On 10 Apr 2017, at 13:49, William Lupton wrote: > > yes/support > > my https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg17899.html > comments still apply; in summary: > * support use of markdown, with the principle that descriptions (etc) remain >

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll draft-lhotka-netmod-yang-markup-00

yes/support my https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg17899.html comments still apply; in summary: * support use of markdown, with the principle that descriptions (etc) remain readable as plain text * support defining conventions for formally referencing enums, bits, nodes etc

Re: [netmod] WG adoption poll draft-lhotka-netmod-yang-markup-00

As the author: yes/support. Two changes seemed to have support in IETF 98 audience: 1. Apart from text/plain, the media type SHOULD be text/markdown (variants permitted). 2. The "text-media-type" extension can appear anywhere in a (sub)module, and will be scoped to the parent statement and its