----- Original Message ----- From: "Andy Bierman" <a...@yumaworks.com> To: "Lou Berger" <lber...@labn.net> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 8:56 PM
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Lou Berger <lber...@labn.net> 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 authors, the reviewers to produce a > > > reasonable document. > > > > > > > My personal view - Because having a few knowledgeable people doesn't > > scale and not all model writers are at the IETF. > > > It is easy to add a guideline that says "a YANG tree diagram MAY be pruned > if it is too verbose, in order to improve readability.". > > Not so easy to define "too verbose" or define what should be pruned. > This is where I agree with Juergen. The authors and reviewers have the > responsibility to make these decisions. A personal take on the size of tree diagrams, based on experience. One page, as the I-D suggests, fine. Over five pages, probably of little or no value. Two or more pages; take steps to reduce, the steps mentioned in the I-D already, looking for logically separate parts (as per RFC7317), reducing tree depth, collapsing groupings (probably with a separate tree for each grouping, which may in turn need to have these rules applied) .... I think that the tree diagrams I see from the Routing Area are pretty dire, on account of their size, and that this WG can see that already whereas other WGs may take a year or two to cotton on. I am an engineer - I want something that works! Tom Petch > > Lou > > > > > Andy > > > > > > > /js > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 06:08:31PM +0100, t.petch wrote: > > >> 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 starts. > > >> > > >> If a document contains a single module which is logically a number of > > >> distinct components, the same strategy should be followed; RFC7317 > > >> provides a good example of this approach. > > >> > > >> /NEW > > >> > > >> Like Juergen, I am conflicted as to at what point details like this > > >> should be part of rfc6087bis; I think a paragraph like this does belong > > >> in 'tree-diagrams'. > > >> > > >> Tom Petch > > >> > > >> ----- Original Message ----- > > >> From: "Lou Berger" <lber...@labn.net> > > >> To: "t.petch" <ie...@btconnect.com>; <netmod@ietf.org> > > >> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 1:38 PM > > >> > > >>> 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 intersperse > > >> the > > >>>> models and the modules, e.g. draft-ietf-lisp-yang-05 . > > >>>> > > >>>> I think the former is superior and should be recommended, especially > > >>>> when, as Sue has done, there is a brief paragraph of text before > > >> each > > >>>> model, so it is very clear where a model ends and another begins. > > >> With > > >>>> the latter, models can be hard to find. > > >>> > > >>>> I see this as dovetailing into Juergen's comments on RFC7317 which, > > >> to > > >>>> me, is really several separate modules packaged as one, so the > > >>>> separation makes excellent sense to a reader. > > >>>> > > >>>> Where the I-D is already several modules, then do as RFC7317 has > > >> done. > > >>> Sure, Do you have text you'd like to propose? > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> Tom Petch > > >>>> > > >>>> ----- Original Message ----- > > >>>> From: "Lou Berger" <lber...@labn.net> > > >>>> To: <netmod@ietf.org> > > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 2:13 PM > > >>>> > > >>>>> 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 > > >> representation > > >>>> of > > >>>>> modules exposed using schema mount. > > >>>>> - Miscellaneous editorial changes > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Lou (for draft authors) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On 10/25/2017 8:49 AM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: > > >>>>>> 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 : draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams-02.txt > > >>>>>> Pages : 11 > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> 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 > > > _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
