Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: > > > On 15/01/2018 15:26, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: > >> Hi Martin, > >> > >> All OK with me except where I have further comments/questions inline > >> below: > >> > >> On 15/01/2018 14:39, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> Thanks for the review! Comments inline. > >>> > >>> Robert Wilton <rwil...@cisco.com> wrote: > >>>> Hi Lou, Martin > >>>> > >>>> I've done a quick review of draft -04. > >>>> > >>>> It looks well written to me. > >>>> > >>>> I have a spotted a few minor nits/questions. > >>>> > >>>> Section 1: > >>>> > >>>> (i) "Such diagrams are commonly used to provided " => "Such diagrams > >>>> are used to provide"? > >>> Ok. > >>> > >>>> (ii) "This document provides the syntax used in YANG Tree Diagrams." > >>>> => "This document describes the syntax used in YANG Tree Diagrams", or > >>>> if not "describes", perhaps "specifies"? > >>> I changed to "describes". > >>> > >>>> (iii) "common practice is include" => "common practice is to include" > >>> Ok. > >>> > >>>> Section 2: > >>>> (iv) Are the top level data nodes really offset by 4 spaces, or should > >>>> this be 2 spaces? The example in section 2, and section 4 seem to > >>>> differ here. The submodule example in Sec 2.1 looks like it is using > >>>> 2 spaces. > >>> It should be 4 spaces. I fixed the example in 2.1. > >> Hum, OK. Is this the right choice? > >> - It means that the tree is indented 2 spaces further than everything > >> else (e.g. groupings, augments, etc). > > Well, I think it is consistent as it is now: > > > > module: <module-name> > > +--<node> > > | +--<node> > > | +--<node> > > +--<node> > > +--<node> > > +--<node> > > > > augment <target-node>: > > +--<node> > > +--<node> > > +--<node> > > +--<node> > > > > Nodes are always intended 4 spaces. > Yes, agree that it is consistent, but personally I would also be happy > for the nodes to be intended 2 spaces for the main tree, and then 4 > spaces for everything else (effectively 2 spaces beyond the > augment/rpc/etc).
Ok. > >> - YANG modules in RFC's already struggle with line length anyway, > >> hence wouldn't the use of 2 spaces give the model a bit more space. > > This is a good argument. I'm happy to save spaces by using 2 instead: > > > > module: <module-name> > > +--<node> > > | +--<node> > > | +--<node> > > +--<node> > > +--<node> > > +--<node> > > > > augment <target-node>: > > +--<node> > > +--<node> > > +--<node> > > +--<node> > I think that compact is better, if not quite so pretty, so this > solution is also OK with me. > > Personally, I quite like a relative indent, i.e. the tree is intended > 2 spaces more than its parent "thing", e.g. > > module: <module-name> > +--<node> > | +--<node> > | +--<node> > +--<node> > +--<node> > +--<node> > > augment <target-node>: > +--<node> > +--<node> > +--<node> > +--<node> Ok, I will use this. /martin > >> I also think that it would be good to check the indent of all the tree > >> diagram snippets in the doc, it looks like they may be using somewhat > >> varying levels of indents (between 2 and 6 spaces). > > Ok. > > > > > >>>> (v) "is prefaces with" => "is prefaced with" > >>> Ok. > >>> > >>>> (vi) Section 2.2, should there be an example of an unexpanded uses > >>>> statement? I was wondering if this section was under specified? > >>> I have added: > >>> > >>> For example, the following diagram shows the "tls-transport" grouping > >>> from [RFC7407] unexpanded: > >>> > >>> +--rw tls > >>> +---u tls-transport > >>> > >>> If the grouping is expanded, it could be printed as: > >>> > >>> +--rw tls > >>> +--rw port? inet:port-number > >>> +--rw client-fingerprint? x509c2n:tls-fingerprint > >>> +--rw server-fingerprint? x509c2n:tls-fingerprint > >>> +--rw server-identity? snmp:admin-string > >> Yes, looks good. > >> > >>>> Section 2.6: > >>>> (vii) "If the node is augmented into the tree from another module, its > >>>> name is printed as <prefix>:<name>." Does there need to be a > >>>> clarification that the prefix name used is the one used by the > >>>> module's import statement? Or does it use the prefix statement from > >>>> the imported modules instead (I know that these should normally be the > >>>> same, but this is not guaranteed). > >>> Since this is used when a node is augmented *into* the main tree, it > >>> can't be the prefix in import, since the augmenting module is not > >>> imported from the augmented module. I did: > >> But the YANG module must import the module that it is augmenting. If a > >> local import prefix is used in the actual YANG module then it would be > >> slightly harder to relate the tree output back to local import > >> prefixes used in the YANG module. > > Here's an example: > > > > module: ietf-interfaces > > +--rw interfaces > > | +--rw interface* [name] > > | +--rw name string > > ... > > | +--rw ip:ipv4! > > > > ietf-interfaces doesn't import ietf-ip, so there is no other prefix to > > use for "ipv4" than the one defined in ietf-ip! > Ah, yes, OK. I was assuming that the tree diagram would always be > done from the augmenting module, but clearly that is not necessarily > the case. > > > > > >>> OLD: > >>> > >>> If the node is augmented into the tree from another module, > >>> its name is printed as <prefix>:<name>. > >>> > >>> NEW: > >>> > >>> If the node is augmented into the tree from another module, > >>> its name is printed as <prefix>:<name>, where <prefix> is the > >>> prefix defined in the module where the node is defined. > >> This is OK with me, but there is still a potential for a prefix > >> namespace clash (since prefixes are not guaranteed to be unique). > >> > >> An alternative solution would be for the YANG tree diagram to list (at > >> the beginning or the end of the diagram) the mappings from prefix -> > >> module name used. > > The tree diagram is supposed to give a simplified overview of the > > structure of a module. I agree with your statemenet below that such a > > mappig adds noise... I prefer to keep the diagram as is. > That is fine with me, really just raising so that the point could be > discussed and closed. > > Thanks, > Rob > > > > > > > > /martin > > > > > >> This has the bonus that it also explicitly lists > >> the YANG modules that are being augmented, but conversely, this might > >> end up just adding unnecessary noise to a diagram that should be short > >> and simple ... > >> > >> A second alternative would be to add some vague text to state that the > >> prefix to module mapping should be explicitly listed in any cases > >> where the prefix name alone is not obvious. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Rob > >> > >> > >>>> Section 3.2. > >>>> (viii) It would be slightly easier to read if there wasn't a linebreak > >>>> between "--" and "tree-print-groupings", not sure if that is feasible > >>>> to force this. > >>> I don't think I can enforce this, but I'll look into it. If nothing > >>> else, the RFC editor will fix this. > >>> > >>> > >>> /martin > >>> > >>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Rob > >>>> > >>>> On 10/01/2018 16:16, joel jaeggli wrote: > >>>>> Just a reminder given the date that this was posted. This last call is > >>>>> expected to complete Monday 1/15/18. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks > >>>>> > >>>>> joel > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On 1/1/18 2:01 PM, joel jaeggli wrote: > >>>>>> Greetings, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> We hope the new year is a time to make great progess on outstanding > >>>>>> documents before preparation for the London IETF begins in earnest. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This starts a two-week working group last call on: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> YANG Tree Diagrams > >>>>>> draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams > >>>>>> > >>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams/ > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Please send email to the list indicating your support or concerns. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> We are particularly interested in statements of the form: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> * I have reviewed this draft and found no issues. > >>>>>> * I have reviewed this draft and found the following issues: ... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thank you, > >>>>>> NETMOD WG Chairs > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> netmod mailing list > >>>>> netmod@ietf.org > >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > >>>>> . > >>>>> > >>> . > >>> > > . > > > _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
