On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Kent Watsen <kwat...@juniper.net> wrote:
> > > > > I think we can allow both and leave it to the document author. Either > > the author uses a well known tree format and refers to its definition > > or the author uses a not yet well known tree format and then it has > > to be defined inline: > > Nice compromise, but even then it would be helpful if a draft that wants > to use some custom-annotations do so on top of a standard tree-diagram. > So, for instance, the draft might say something like: > > Tree diagrams used in this draft use notation described in > [RFCXXXX] with the following additional annotations: > > @ - means ... > # - means ... > etc. > > This way, reader can focus more quickly on the diffs, but also this > likely mimics what happened in reality (start with `pyang -f tree` > and then manually edit from there). What do you think? > > YANG is supposed to be prioritized for readers, writers, and then tool-makers. As a reader of YANG modules, I do not want people creating their own tree diagram syntax. I prefer all tree diagrams use the same syntax. > K. > > > Andy
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
