Re: [netmod] tree diagram guidelines

[Andy Bierman]

Hi,

These changes are OK with me.



Andy


On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Lou Berger  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Following up on this discussion (and hoping to wrap it up):
>
> I have created two  wikis off of
> https://trac.ietf.org/trac/netmod/wiki/WikiStart, one for 6087bis
> content and the other for section 3 of tree diagrams.  I also propose
> the following changes to the tree-diagrams draft:
>
> To section 3 intro, add:
> For the most current quidelines being developed, please see the IETF
> NetMod Working
>Group Wiki, see:  https://trac.ietf.org/trac/netmod/wiki/WikiStart
>
> Add :
>   3.2.  Groupings
>
>If the YANG module is comprised of groupings only, then the tree
>diagram should contain the groupings.  The 'pyang' compiler can be
>used to produce a tree diagram with groupings using the "-f tree --
>tree-print-groupings" command line parameters.
>
> And to section 3.3, start with:
>
>Tree diagrams can be split into sections to correspond to document
>structure.
>
> For 6087 bis, I think section 3.4 gets replaced with something like.
>
> YANG tree diagrams provide a concise representation of a YANG module,
>and SHOULD be included to help readers understand YANG module
> structure.  Guidelines on tree diagrams can be found in Section 3 of
> [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams].
>
> These changes can be found at:
> https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-tree-diagrams/commit/
> 53919e0a4549c285758eb5aaaf02cf980269afff
>
> This leaves the intended status as the key open issue on the draft.
>
> Lou
>
>
> On 11/17/2017 2:00 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > I am confused. I think there was some consensus to
> >
> > - include all tree related guidelines in the tree document, remove all
> tree
> >   related guidelines from 6087bis and have 6087bis point to the tree
> document
> >   (which it already does)
> >
> > The rest is pointless since AFAIK there is no wiki guidelines pages to
> > point to and there is AFAIK nobody in place to actually maintain such
> > a wiki page. Perhaps a wiki is the future but until future has
> > arrived, we should not point to it.
> >
> > The other proposal I heard was to have a landing page that points to
> > the current guideline work which points to the relevant documents. A
> > wiki pointing to RFCs and ID, not RFC pointing to wikis. So this does not
> > affect the documents.
> >
> > /js
> >
> > PS: I am happy to add pointers to guidelines as a section to the
> > wikipedia page.
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 07:42:33AM +0800, Lou Berger wrote:
> >> To circle back to this.  My sense of this discussion (as contributor) is
> >> (a) the tree diagrams draft should be updated to point to a "guidelines"
> >> wiki page for "the most current guidelines"
> >> (b) the tree diagrams draft should be updated to include a full set of
> the
> >> current tree related guidelines
> >> (c) 6087bis should be updated to point to a "guidelines" wiki page for
> "the
> >> most current guidelines"
> >> (d) 6087bis should have it's tree guidelines point to the tree diagrams
> >> document -- in addition to pointing to the wiki
> >>
> >> Does this sound right?
> >>
> >> Lou
> >> (as tree co-author)
> >>
> >> On 11/16/2017 11:04 AM, Mehmet Ersue wrote:
> >>> The Wiki is useful as a starting point providing a collection of
> pointers to guideline RFCs and the bis-revisions in development.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Mehmet
> >>>
> >>>> -Original Message-
> >>>> From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mahesh
> >>>> Jethanandani
> >>>> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 7:39 AM
> >>>> To: Robert Wilton 
> >>>> Cc: netmod@ietf.org
> >>>> Subject: Re: [netmod] tree diagram guidelines
> >>>>
> >>>> Other SDOs can and follow the work in IETF through the RFCs we
> publish.
> >>>> They do not follow wiki’s, unless the document itself says, “here are
> the
> >>>> guidelines, but if you are looking for the latest, go to this wiki”.
> I therefore
> >>>> would support the proposal outlined below. It gives the SDO a stable
> point of
> >>>> reference with a document, which gets updated occasionally, but also
> allows
> >>>> them to peak at what is coming down the pipeline.
>

Re: [netmod] tree diagram guidelines

[Martin Bjorklund]

Juergen Schoenwaelder  wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 06:38:14PM -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
> > 
> > This leaves the intended status as the key open issue on the draft.
> >
> 
> Have the suggestions for including a collapsed view of uses been
> included?

No, not yet.

> Related to the status, I do think that the reference to YANG [RFC7950]
> should be normative - other BCP documents also have normative
> references and frankly this document talks a lot about YANG constructs
> and hence it really has more than in informative dependency on YANG.

I agree.

> Is someone tracking issues somewhere?

Not in a tracker, no.  Just manually.


/martin

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] tree diagram guidelines

[Juergen Schoenwaelder]

"guidelines" wiki page for 
> > > > "the
> > > > most current guidelines"
> > > > (d) 6087bis should have it's tree guidelines point to the tree diagrams
> > > > document -- in addition to pointing to the wiki
> > > > 
> > > > Does this sound right?
> > > > 
> > > > Lou
> > > > (as tree co-author)
> > > > 
> > > > On 11/16/2017 11:04 AM, Mehmet Ersue wrote:
> > > > > The Wiki is useful as a starting point providing a collection of 
> > > > > pointers to guideline RFCs and the bis-revisions in development.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Mehmet
> > > > > 
> > > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > > From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mahesh
> > > > > > Jethanandani
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 7:39 AM
> > > > > > To: Robert Wilton 
> > > > > > Cc: netmod@ietf.org
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [netmod] tree diagram guidelines
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Other SDOs can and follow the work in IETF through the RFCs we 
> > > > > > publish.
> > > > > > They do not follow wiki’s, unless the document itself says, “here 
> > > > > > are the
> > > > > > guidelines, but if you are looking for the latest, go to this 
> > > > > > wiki”. I therefore
> > > > > > would support the proposal outlined below. It gives the SDO a 
> > > > > > stable point of
> > > > > > reference with a document, which gets updated occasionally, but 
> > > > > > also allows
> > > > > > them to peak at what is coming down the pipeline.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Thanks.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > On Nov 15, 2017, at 6:53 PM, Robert Wilton  
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I liked the suggestion from Chris Hopps:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I think that it was along the lines of ...
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > The RFC contains a reference at the top that states that updates 
> > > > > > > to the
> > > > > > guidelines is available on a wiki at 
> > > > > > > Every few years the guidelines on the wiki can be folded into a 
> > > > > > > latest
> > > > > > version of the guidelines draft.
> > > > > > > 6087bis looks to be 3.5 years old.  Should folks, e.g. at BBF,, 
> > > > > > > IEEE, or MEF be
> > > > > > using the latest draft guidelines, or should then use the published 
> > > > > > RFC until
> > > > > > 6087bis is actually republshed?
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Rob
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > On 15/11/2017 10:14, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > There was a proposal in the meeting today to have the 
> > > > > > > > guidelines for
> > > > > > > > tree diagrams in a wiki, instead of having them in 6087bis or 
> > > > > > > > in the
> > > > > > > > tree diagram document.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Was the proposal really to have a wiki for just the tree 
> > > > > > > > guidelines,
> > > > > > > > or was the proposal to withdraw 6087bis from the process and 
> > > > > > > > instead
> > > > > > > > publish all guidelines as a wiki?
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > If it is the former, is it really worth it?
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Advantages with a wiki:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > +  It can be updated more easily
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Some drawbacks:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > -  It can be updated more easily
> > > > > > &g

Re: [netmod] tree diagram guidelines

[Juergen Schoenwaelder]

On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 06:38:14PM -0500, Lou Berger wrote:
> 
> This leaves the intended status as the key open issue on the draft.
>

Have the suggestions for including a collapsed view of uses been
included?

Related to the status, I do think that the reference to YANG [RFC7950]
should be normative - other BCP documents also have normative
references and frankly this document talks a lot about YANG constructs
and hence it really has more than in informative dependency on YANG.

Is someone tracking issues somewhere?

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder   Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103 

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] tree diagram guidelines

[Susan Hares]

Joel:

Agreed.  If it is going to common usage, then a BCP is appropriate.  Otherwise, 
the reader and user gets confused. 

Sue 

-Original Message-
From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern
Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2017 8:05 PM
To: netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] tree diagram guidelines

 I have been watching this discussion of referencing the wiki page from the 
RFC-to-be about tree diagrams.  I must admit that I am confused as to why we 
would want to do so.

 For anyone writing a document with a YANG tree, what they are required to 
do is what is in this RFC.  While the wiki page may be interesting, it is not 
normative.
 For anyone reading an RFC that uses a Tree diagram (a significantly larger 
number of people), what they need to know is in the RFC.  Reading the wiki not 
only is not normative, it may well have content that was not even present when 
the RFC that they are reading was written.  In fact, the content of the wiki 
may contradict what is in the RFC they are reading, without indicating any 
errors having been made.  Which I fear may be confusing to the reader.

 I understand and support wanting to make it easy for readers to find the 
wiki of ongoing discussions of YANG tree diagrams (and other
issues.)  But it seems like this is the wrong way to achieve the goal.

Yours,
Joel

On 12/7/17 6:38 PM, Lou Berger wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Following up on this discussion (and hoping to wrap it up):
> 
> I have created two  wikis off of
> https://trac.ietf.org/trac/netmod/wiki/WikiStart, one for 6087bis 
> content and the other for section 3 of tree diagrams.  I also propose 
> the following changes to the tree-diagrams draft:
> 
> To section 3 intro, add:
>  For the most current quidelines being developed, please see the 
> IETF NetMod Working
> Group Wiki, see:  https://trac.ietf.org/trac/netmod/wiki/WikiStart
> 
> Add :
>3.2.  Groupings
> 
> If the YANG module is comprised of groupings only, then the tree
> diagram should contain the groupings.  The 'pyang' compiler can be
> used to produce a tree diagram with groupings using the "-f tree 
> --
> tree-print-groupings" command line parameters.
> 
> And to section 3.3, start with:
> 
> Tree diagrams can be split into sections to correspond to document
> structure.
> 
> For 6087 bis, I think section 3.4 gets replaced with something like.
> 
>  YANG tree diagrams provide a concise representation of a YANG 
> module,
> and SHOULD be included to help readers understand YANG module
>  structure.  Guidelines on tree diagrams can be found in Section 3 
> of
>  [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams].
> 
> These changes can be found at:
> https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-tree-diagrams/commit/53919e0a4549c28
> 5758eb5aaaf02cf980269afff
> 
> This leaves the intended status as the key open issue on the draft.
> 
> Lou
> 
> 
> On 11/17/2017 2:00 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
>> I am confused. I think there was some consensus to
>>
>> - include all tree related guidelines in the tree document, remove all tree
>>related guidelines from 6087bis and have 6087bis point to the tree 
>> document
>>(which it already does)
>>
>> The rest is pointless since AFAIK there is no wiki guidelines pages 
>> to point to and there is AFAIK nobody in place to actually maintain 
>> such a wiki page. Perhaps a wiki is the future but until future has 
>> arrived, we should not point to it.
>>
>> The other proposal I heard was to have a landing page that points to 
>> the current guideline work which points to the relevant documents. A 
>> wiki pointing to RFCs and ID, not RFC pointing to wikis. So this does 
>> not affect the documents.
>>
>> /js
>>
>> PS: I am happy to add pointers to guidelines as a section to the
>>  wikipedia page.
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 07:42:33AM +0800, Lou Berger wrote:
>>> To circle back to this.  My sense of this discussion (as 
>>> contributor) is
>>> (a) the tree diagrams draft should be updated to point to a "guidelines"
>>> wiki page for "the most current guidelines"
>>> (b) the tree diagrams draft should be updated to include a full set 
>>> of the current tree related guidelines
>>> (c) 6087bis should be updated to point to a "guidelines" wiki page 
>>> for "the most current guidelines"
>>> (d) 6087bis should have it's tree guidelines point to the tree 
>>> diagrams document -- in addition to pointing to the wiki
>>>
>>> Does this sound right?
>>>
>>> 

Re: [netmod] tree diagram guidelines

[Joel M. Halpern]

I have been watching this discussion of referencing the wiki page 
from the RFC-to-be about tree diagrams.  I must admit that I am confused 
as to why we would want to do so.


For anyone writing a document with a YANG tree, what they are 
required to do is what is in this RFC.  While the wiki page may be 
interesting, it is not normative.
For anyone reading an RFC that uses a Tree diagram (a significantly 
larger number of people), what they need to know is in the RFC.  Reading 
the wiki not only is not normative, it may well have content that was 
not even present when the RFC that they are reading was written.  In 
fact, the content of the wiki may contradict what is in the RFC they are 
reading, without indicating any errors having been made.  Which I fear 
may be confusing to the reader.


I understand and support wanting to make it easy for readers to 
find the wiki of ongoing discussions of YANG tree diagrams (and other 
issues.)  But it seems like this is the wrong way to achieve the goal.


Yours,
Joel

On 12/7/17 6:38 PM, Lou Berger wrote:

Hi,

Following up on this discussion (and hoping to wrap it up):

I have created two  wikis off of
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/netmod/wiki/WikiStart, one for 6087bis
content and the other for section 3 of tree diagrams.  I also propose
the following changes to the tree-diagrams draft:

To section 3 intro, add:
     For the most current quidelines being developed, please see the IETF
NetMod Working
    Group Wiki, see:  https://trac.ietf.org/trac/netmod/wiki/WikiStart

Add :
   3.2.  Groupings

    If the YANG module is comprised of groupings only, then the tree
    diagram should contain the groupings.  The 'pyang' compiler can be
    used to produce a tree diagram with groupings using the "-f tree --
    tree-print-groupings" command line parameters.

And to section 3.3, start with:

    Tree diagrams can be split into sections to correspond to document
    structure.

For 6087 bis, I think section 3.4 gets replaced with something like.

     YANG tree diagrams provide a concise representation of a YANG module,
    and SHOULD be included to help readers understand YANG module
     structure.  Guidelines on tree diagrams can be found in Section 3 of
     [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams].

These changes can be found at:
https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-tree-diagrams/commit/53919e0a4549c285758eb5aaaf02cf980269afff

This leaves the intended status as the key open issue on the draft.

Lou


On 11/17/2017 2:00 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:

I am confused. I think there was some consensus to

- include all tree related guidelines in the tree document, remove all tree
   related guidelines from 6087bis and have 6087bis point to the tree document
   (which it already does)

The rest is pointless since AFAIK there is no wiki guidelines pages to
point to and there is AFAIK nobody in place to actually maintain such
a wiki page. Perhaps a wiki is the future but until future has
arrived, we should not point to it.

The other proposal I heard was to have a landing page that points to
the current guideline work which points to the relevant documents. A
wiki pointing to RFCs and ID, not RFC pointing to wikis. So this does not
affect the documents.

/js

PS: I am happy to add pointers to guidelines as a section to the
 wikipedia page.

On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 07:42:33AM +0800, Lou Berger wrote:

To circle back to this.  My sense of this discussion (as contributor) is
(a) the tree diagrams draft should be updated to point to a "guidelines"
wiki page for "the most current guidelines"
(b) the tree diagrams draft should be updated to include a full set of the
current tree related guidelines
(c) 6087bis should be updated to point to a "guidelines" wiki page for "the
most current guidelines"
(d) 6087bis should have it's tree guidelines point to the tree diagrams
document -- in addition to pointing to the wiki

Does this sound right?

Lou
(as tree co-author)

On 11/16/2017 11:04 AM, Mehmet Ersue wrote:

The Wiki is useful as a starting point providing a collection of pointers to 
guideline RFCs and the bis-revisions in development.

Cheers,
Mehmet


-Original Message-
From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mahesh
Jethanandani
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 7:39 AM
To: Robert Wilton 
Cc: netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] tree diagram guidelines

Other SDOs can and follow the work in IETF through the RFCs we publish.
They do not follow wiki’s, unless the document itself says, “here are the
guidelines, but if you are looking for the latest, go to this wiki”. I therefore
would support the proposal outlined below. It gives the SDO a stable point of
reference with a document, which gets updated occasionally, but also allows
them to peak at what is coming down the pipeline.

Thanks.


On Nov 15, 2017, at 6:53 PM, Robert Wilton  wrote:

I liked the suggestion from 

Re: [netmod] tree diagram guidelines

[Lou Berger]

Hi,

Following up on this discussion (and hoping to wrap it up):

I have created two  wikis off of
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/netmod/wiki/WikiStart, one for 6087bis
content and the other for section 3 of tree diagrams.  I also propose
the following changes to the tree-diagrams draft:

To section 3 intro, add:
    For the most current quidelines being developed, please see the IETF
NetMod Working
   Group Wiki, see:  https://trac.ietf.org/trac/netmod/wiki/WikiStart

Add :
  3.2.  Groupings

   If the YANG module is comprised of groupings only, then the tree
   diagram should contain the groupings.  The 'pyang' compiler can be
   used to produce a tree diagram with groupings using the "-f tree --
   tree-print-groupings" command line parameters.

And to section 3.3, start with:

   Tree diagrams can be split into sections to correspond to document
   structure.

For 6087 bis, I think section 3.4 gets replaced with something like.

    YANG tree diagrams provide a concise representation of a YANG module,
   and SHOULD be included to help readers understand YANG module
    structure.  Guidelines on tree diagrams can be found in Section 3 of
    [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams].

These changes can be found at:
https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-tree-diagrams/commit/53919e0a4549c285758eb5aaaf02cf980269afff

This leaves the intended status as the key open issue on the draft.

Lou


On 11/17/2017 2:00 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> I am confused. I think there was some consensus to
>
> - include all tree related guidelines in the tree document, remove all tree
>   related guidelines from 6087bis and have 6087bis point to the tree document
>   (which it already does)
>
> The rest is pointless since AFAIK there is no wiki guidelines pages to
> point to and there is AFAIK nobody in place to actually maintain such
> a wiki page. Perhaps a wiki is the future but until future has
> arrived, we should not point to it.
>
> The other proposal I heard was to have a landing page that points to
> the current guideline work which points to the relevant documents. A
> wiki pointing to RFCs and ID, not RFC pointing to wikis. So this does not
> affect the documents.
>
> /js
>
> PS: I am happy to add pointers to guidelines as a section to the
> wikipedia page.
>
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 07:42:33AM +0800, Lou Berger wrote:
>> To circle back to this.  My sense of this discussion (as contributor) is
>> (a) the tree diagrams draft should be updated to point to a "guidelines"
>> wiki page for "the most current guidelines"
>> (b) the tree diagrams draft should be updated to include a full set of the
>> current tree related guidelines
>> (c) 6087bis should be updated to point to a "guidelines" wiki page for "the
>> most current guidelines"
>> (d) 6087bis should have it's tree guidelines point to the tree diagrams
>> document -- in addition to pointing to the wiki
>>
>> Does this sound right?
>>
>> Lou
>> (as tree co-author)
>>
>> On 11/16/2017 11:04 AM, Mehmet Ersue wrote:
>>> The Wiki is useful as a starting point providing a collection of pointers 
>>> to guideline RFCs and the bis-revisions in development.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Mehmet
>>>
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>> From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mahesh
>>>> Jethanandani
>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 7:39 AM
>>>> To: Robert Wilton 
>>>> Cc: netmod@ietf.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [netmod] tree diagram guidelines
>>>>
>>>> Other SDOs can and follow the work in IETF through the RFCs we publish.
>>>> They do not follow wiki’s, unless the document itself says, “here are the
>>>> guidelines, but if you are looking for the latest, go to this wiki”. I 
>>>> therefore
>>>> would support the proposal outlined below. It gives the SDO a stable point 
>>>> of
>>>> reference with a document, which gets updated occasionally, but also allows
>>>> them to peak at what is coming down the pipeline.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 15, 2017, at 6:53 PM, Robert Wilton  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I liked the suggestion from Chris Hopps:
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that it was along the lines of ...
>>>>>
>>>>> The RFC contains a reference at the top that states that updates to the
>>>> guidelines is available on a wiki at 
>>>>> Every few years the guidelines on the wiki can be folded into a latest
>>>> version of the guide

Re: [netmod] tree diagram guidelines

[Juergen Schoenwaelder]

I am confused. I think there was some consensus to

- include all tree related guidelines in the tree document, remove all tree
  related guidelines from 6087bis and have 6087bis point to the tree document
  (which it already does)

The rest is pointless since AFAIK there is no wiki guidelines pages to
point to and there is AFAIK nobody in place to actually maintain such
a wiki page. Perhaps a wiki is the future but until future has
arrived, we should not point to it.

The other proposal I heard was to have a landing page that points to
the current guideline work which points to the relevant documents. A
wiki pointing to RFCs and ID, not RFC pointing to wikis. So this does not
affect the documents.

/js

PS: I am happy to add pointers to guidelines as a section to the
wikipedia page.

On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 07:42:33AM +0800, Lou Berger wrote:
> To circle back to this.  My sense of this discussion (as contributor) is
> (a) the tree diagrams draft should be updated to point to a "guidelines"
> wiki page for "the most current guidelines"
> (b) the tree diagrams draft should be updated to include a full set of the
> current tree related guidelines
> (c) 6087bis should be updated to point to a "guidelines" wiki page for "the
> most current guidelines"
> (d) 6087bis should have it's tree guidelines point to the tree diagrams
> document -- in addition to pointing to the wiki
> 
> Does this sound right?
> 
> Lou
> (as tree co-author)
> 
> On 11/16/2017 11:04 AM, Mehmet Ersue wrote:
> > The Wiki is useful as a starting point providing a collection of pointers 
> > to guideline RFCs and the bis-revisions in development.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Mehmet
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mahesh
> > > Jethanandani
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 7:39 AM
> > > To: Robert Wilton 
> > > Cc: netmod@ietf.org
> > > Subject: Re: [netmod] tree diagram guidelines
> > > 
> > > Other SDOs can and follow the work in IETF through the RFCs we publish.
> > > They do not follow wiki’s, unless the document itself says, “here are the
> > > guidelines, but if you are looking for the latest, go to this wiki”. I 
> > > therefore
> > > would support the proposal outlined below. It gives the SDO a stable 
> > > point of
> > > reference with a document, which gets updated occasionally, but also 
> > > allows
> > > them to peak at what is coming down the pipeline.
> > > 
> > > Thanks.
> > > 
> > > > On Nov 15, 2017, at 6:53 PM, Robert Wilton  wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > I liked the suggestion from Chris Hopps:
> > > > 
> > > > I think that it was along the lines of ...
> > > > 
> > > > The RFC contains a reference at the top that states that updates to the
> > > guidelines is available on a wiki at 
> > > > 
> > > > Every few years the guidelines on the wiki can be folded into a latest
> > > version of the guidelines draft.
> > > > 
> > > > 6087bis looks to be 3.5 years old.  Should folks, e.g. at BBF,, IEEE, 
> > > > or MEF be
> > > using the latest draft guidelines, or should then use the published RFC 
> > > until
> > > 6087bis is actually republshed?
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Rob
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On 15/11/2017 10:14, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > > 
> > > > > There was a proposal in the meeting today to have the guidelines for
> > > > > tree diagrams in a wiki, instead of having them in 6087bis or in the
> > > > > tree diagram document.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Was the proposal really to have a wiki for just the tree guidelines,
> > > > > or was the proposal to withdraw 6087bis from the process and instead
> > > > > publish all guidelines as a wiki?
> > > > > 
> > > > > If it is the former, is it really worth it?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Advantages with a wiki:
> > > > > 
> > > > >+  It can be updated more easily
> > > > > 
> > > > > Some drawbacks:
> > > > > 
> > > > >-  It can be updated more easily
> > > > >   (meaning they are less stable)
> > > > > 
> > > > >-  Wikis tend to not be alive after some time, and are not that
> > >

Re: [netmod] tree diagram guidelines

[Mehmet Ersue]

Sounds perfect to me.

Mehmet

> -Original Message-
> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lber...@labn.net]
> Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 7:43 AM
> To: Mehmet Ersue ; 'Mahesh Jethanandani'
> ; 'Robert Wilton' 
> Cc: netmod@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [netmod] tree diagram guidelines
> 
> To circle back to this.  My sense of this discussion (as contributor) is
> (a) the tree diagrams draft should be updated to point to a "guidelines"
> wiki page for "the most current guidelines"
> (b) the tree diagrams draft should be updated to include a full set of the
> current tree related guidelines
> (c) 6087bis should be updated to point to a "guidelines" wiki page for "the
> most current guidelines"
> (d) 6087bis should have it's tree guidelines point to the tree diagrams
> document -- in addition to pointing to the wiki
> 
> Does this sound right?
> 
> Lou
> (as tree co-author)
> 
> On 11/16/2017 11:04 AM, Mehmet Ersue wrote:
> > The Wiki is useful as a starting point providing a collection of pointers to
> guideline RFCs and the bis-revisions in development.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Mehmet
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mahesh
> >> Jethanandani
> >> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 7:39 AM
> >> To: Robert Wilton 
> >> Cc: netmod@ietf.org
> >> Subject: Re: [netmod] tree diagram guidelines
> >>
> >> Other SDOs can and follow the work in IETF through the RFCs we publish.
> >> They do not follow wiki’s, unless the document itself says, “here are
> >> the guidelines, but if you are looking for the latest, go to this
> >> wiki”. I therefore would support the proposal outlined below. It
> >> gives the SDO a stable point of reference with a document, which gets
> >> updated occasionally, but also allows them to peak at what is coming
> down the pipeline.
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >>> On Nov 15, 2017, at 6:53 PM, Robert Wilton  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I liked the suggestion from Chris Hopps:
> >>>
> >>> I think that it was along the lines of ...
> >>>
> >>> The RFC contains a reference at the top that states that updates to
> >>> the
> >> guidelines is available on a wiki at 
> >>>
> >>> Every few years the guidelines on the wiki can be folded into a
> >>> latest
> >> version of the guidelines draft.
> >>>
> >>> 6087bis looks to be 3.5 years old.  Should folks, e.g. at BBF,,
> >>> IEEE, or MEF be
> >> using the latest draft guidelines, or should then use the published
> >> RFC until 6087bis is actually republshed?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Rob
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 15/11/2017 10:14, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> There was a proposal in the meeting today to have the guidelines
> >>>> for tree diagrams in a wiki, instead of having them in 6087bis or
> >>>> in the tree diagram document.
> >>>>
> >>>> Was the proposal really to have a wiki for just the tree
> >>>> guidelines, or was the proposal to withdraw 6087bis from the
> >>>> process and instead publish all guidelines as a wiki?
> >>>>
> >>>> If it is the former, is it really worth it?
> >>>>
> >>>> Advantages with a wiki:
> >>>>
> >>>>+  It can be updated more easily
> >>>>
> >>>> Some drawbacks:
> >>>>
> >>>>-  It can be updated more easily
> >>>>   (meaning they are less stable)
> >>>>
> >>>>-  Wikis tend to not be alive after some time, and are not that
> >>>>   easy to find.  Just try to find the various YANG-related wikis
> >>>>   we've tried to maintain over the years.
> >>>>
> >>>>-  Links in RFCs also have problems.  Sites are re-orginized etc.
> >>>>   As an example, the link to the security guidelines template in
> >>>>   RFC 6087 doesn't work anymore.
> >>>>
> >>>>-  People that are looking for a stable reference will have problems
> >>>>   (I think Rob mentioned that IEEE still refer to RFC 6087 (which
> >>>>   is understandable; that's the published vers

Re: [netmod] tree diagram guidelines

[Lou Berger]

To circle back to this.  My sense of this discussion (as contributor) is
(a) the tree diagrams draft should be updated to point to a "guidelines" 
wiki page for "the most current guidelines"
(b) the tree diagrams draft should be updated to include a full set of 
the current tree related guidelines
(c) 6087bis should be updated to point to a "guidelines" wiki page for 
"the most current guidelines"
(d) 6087bis should have it's tree guidelines point to the tree diagrams 
document -- in addition to pointing to the wiki


Does this sound right?

Lou
(as tree co-author)

On 11/16/2017 11:04 AM, Mehmet Ersue wrote:

The Wiki is useful as a starting point providing a collection of pointers to 
guideline RFCs and the bis-revisions in development.

Cheers,
Mehmet


-Original Message-
From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mahesh
Jethanandani
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 7:39 AM
To: Robert Wilton 
Cc: netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] tree diagram guidelines

Other SDOs can and follow the work in IETF through the RFCs we publish.
They do not follow wiki’s, unless the document itself says, “here are the
guidelines, but if you are looking for the latest, go to this wiki”. I therefore
would support the proposal outlined below. It gives the SDO a stable point of
reference with a document, which gets updated occasionally, but also allows
them to peak at what is coming down the pipeline.

Thanks.


On Nov 15, 2017, at 6:53 PM, Robert Wilton  wrote:

I liked the suggestion from Chris Hopps:

I think that it was along the lines of ...

The RFC contains a reference at the top that states that updates to the

guidelines is available on a wiki at 


Every few years the guidelines on the wiki can be folded into a latest

version of the guidelines draft.


6087bis looks to be 3.5 years old.  Should folks, e.g. at BBF,, IEEE, or MEF be

using the latest draft guidelines, or should then use the published RFC until
6087bis is actually republshed?


Thanks,
Rob


On 15/11/2017 10:14, Martin Bjorklund wrote:

Hi,

There was a proposal in the meeting today to have the guidelines for
tree diagrams in a wiki, instead of having them in 6087bis or in the
tree diagram document.

Was the proposal really to have a wiki for just the tree guidelines,
or was the proposal to withdraw 6087bis from the process and instead
publish all guidelines as a wiki?

If it is the former, is it really worth it?

Advantages with a wiki:

   +  It can be updated more easily

Some drawbacks:

   -  It can be updated more easily
  (meaning they are less stable)

   -  Wikis tend to not be alive after some time, and are not that
  easy to find.  Just try to find the various YANG-related wikis
  we've tried to maintain over the years.

   -  Links in RFCs also have problems.  Sites are re-orginized etc.
  As an example, the link to the security guidelines template in
  RFC 6087 doesn't work anymore.

   -  People that are looking for a stable reference will have problems
  (I think Rob mentioned that IEEE still refer to RFC 6087 (which
  is understandable; that's the published version).

   -  Who maintains the Wiki, and what are the rules for updating it?


I suggest we have the tree-related guidelines (actually just a few
sentences) in the tree draft, and since 6087bis already refers to
this document it is not a big problem that guidelines are spread out
over several documents that are difficult to find.



/martin

___
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


Mahesh Jethanandani
mjethanand...@gmail.com

___
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

Re: [netmod] tree diagram guidelines

[Mehmet Ersue]

The Wiki is useful as a starting point providing a collection of pointers to 
guideline RFCs and the bis-revisions in development.

Cheers,
Mehmet

> -Original Message-
> From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mahesh
> Jethanandani
> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 7:39 AM
> To: Robert Wilton 
> Cc: netmod@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [netmod] tree diagram guidelines
> 
> Other SDOs can and follow the work in IETF through the RFCs we publish.
> They do not follow wiki’s, unless the document itself says, “here are the
> guidelines, but if you are looking for the latest, go to this wiki”. I 
> therefore
> would support the proposal outlined below. It gives the SDO a stable point of
> reference with a document, which gets updated occasionally, but also allows
> them to peak at what is coming down the pipeline.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> > On Nov 15, 2017, at 6:53 PM, Robert Wilton  wrote:
> >
> > I liked the suggestion from Chris Hopps:
> >
> > I think that it was along the lines of ...
> >
> > The RFC contains a reference at the top that states that updates to the
> guidelines is available on a wiki at 
> >
> > Every few years the guidelines on the wiki can be folded into a latest
> version of the guidelines draft.
> >
> > 6087bis looks to be 3.5 years old.  Should folks, e.g. at BBF,, IEEE, or 
> > MEF be
> using the latest draft guidelines, or should then use the published RFC until
> 6087bis is actually republshed?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Rob
> >
> >
> > On 15/11/2017 10:14, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> There was a proposal in the meeting today to have the guidelines for
> >> tree diagrams in a wiki, instead of having them in 6087bis or in the
> >> tree diagram document.
> >>
> >> Was the proposal really to have a wiki for just the tree guidelines,
> >> or was the proposal to withdraw 6087bis from the process and instead
> >> publish all guidelines as a wiki?
> >>
> >> If it is the former, is it really worth it?
> >>
> >> Advantages with a wiki:
> >>
> >>   +  It can be updated more easily
> >>
> >> Some drawbacks:
> >>
> >>   -  It can be updated more easily
> >>  (meaning they are less stable)
> >>
> >>   -  Wikis tend to not be alive after some time, and are not that
> >>  easy to find.  Just try to find the various YANG-related wikis
> >>  we've tried to maintain over the years.
> >>
> >>   -  Links in RFCs also have problems.  Sites are re-orginized etc.
> >>  As an example, the link to the security guidelines template in
> >>  RFC 6087 doesn't work anymore.
> >>
> >>   -  People that are looking for a stable reference will have problems
> >>  (I think Rob mentioned that IEEE still refer to RFC 6087 (which
> >>  is understandable; that's the published version).
> >>
> >>   -  Who maintains the Wiki, and what are the rules for updating it?
> >>
> >>
> >> I suggest we have the tree-related guidelines (actually just a few
> >> sentences) in the tree draft, and since 6087bis already refers to
> >> this document it is not a big problem that guidelines are spread out
> >> over several documents that are difficult to find.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> /martin
> >>
> >> ___
> >> 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
> 
> Mahesh Jethanandani
> mjethanand...@gmail.com
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [netmod] tree diagram guidelines

[Mahesh Jethanandani]

Other SDOs can and follow the work in IETF through the RFCs we publish. They do 
not follow wiki’s, unless the document itself says, “here are the guidelines, 
but if you are looking for the latest, go to this wiki”. I therefore would 
support the proposal outlined below. It gives the SDO a stable point of 
reference with a document, which gets updated occasionally, but also allows 
them to peak at what is coming down the pipeline.

Thanks.

> On Nov 15, 2017, at 6:53 PM, Robert Wilton  wrote:
> 
> I liked the suggestion from Chris Hopps:
> 
> I think that it was along the lines of ...
> 
> The RFC contains a reference at the top that states that updates to the 
> guidelines is available on a wiki at 
> 
> Every few years the guidelines on the wiki can be folded into a latest 
> version of the guidelines draft.
> 
> 6087bis looks to be 3.5 years old.  Should folks, e.g. at BBF,, IEEE, or MEF 
> be using the latest draft guidelines, or should then use the published RFC 
> until 6087bis is actually republshed?
> 
> Thanks,
> Rob
> 
> 
> On 15/11/2017 10:14, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> There was a proposal in the meeting today to have the guidelines for
>> tree diagrams in a wiki, instead of having them in 6087bis or in the
>> tree diagram document.
>> 
>> Was the proposal really to have a wiki for just the tree guidelines,
>> or was the proposal to withdraw 6087bis from the process and instead
>> publish all guidelines as a wiki?
>> 
>> If it is the former, is it really worth it?
>> 
>> Advantages with a wiki:
>> 
>>   +  It can be updated more easily
>> 
>> Some drawbacks:
>> 
>>   -  It can be updated more easily
>>  (meaning they are less stable)
>> 
>>   -  Wikis tend to not be alive after some time, and are not that
>>  easy to find.  Just try to find the various YANG-related wikis
>>  we've tried to maintain over the years.
>> 
>>   -  Links in RFCs also have problems.  Sites are re-orginized etc.
>>  As an example, the link to the security guidelines template in
>>  RFC 6087 doesn't work anymore.
>> 
>>   -  People that are looking for a stable reference will have problems
>>  (I think Rob mentioned that IEEE still refer to RFC 6087 (which
>>  is understandable; that's the published version).
>> 
>>   -  Who maintains the Wiki, and what are the rules for updating it?
>> 
>> 
>> I suggest we have the tree-related guidelines (actually just a few
>> sentences) in the tree draft, and since 6087bis already refers to this
>> document it is not a big problem that guidelines are spread out over
>> several documents that are difficult to find.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> /martin
>> 
>> ___
>> 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

Mahesh Jethanandani
mjethanand...@gmail.com

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] tree diagram guidelines

[Mehmet Ersue]

Hi All,

I think having the tree-related guidelines in the tree draft and finalizing 
6087bis as planned is useful.
That said a NETMOD wiki explaining the available guidelines with pointers can 
be used as a starting point and would be additionally helpful.

Mehmet

> -Original Message-
> From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Robert
> Wilton
> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 6:53 PM
> To: Martin Bjorklund ; netmod@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [netmod] tree diagram guidelines
> 
> I liked the suggestion from Chris Hopps:
> 
> I think that it was along the lines of ...
> 
> The RFC contains a reference at the top that states that updates to the
> guidelines is available on a wiki at 
> 
> Every few years the guidelines on the wiki can be folded into a latest version
> of the guidelines draft.
> 
> 6087bis looks to be 3.5 years old.  Should folks, e.g. at BBF,, IEEE, or MEF 
> be
> using the latest draft guidelines, or should then use the published RFC until
> 6087bis is actually republshed?
> 
> Thanks,
> Rob
> 
> 
> On 15/11/2017 10:14, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > There was a proposal in the meeting today to have the guidelines for
> > tree diagrams in a wiki, instead of having them in 6087bis or in the
> > tree diagram document.
> >
> > Was the proposal really to have a wiki for just the tree guidelines,
> > or was the proposal to withdraw 6087bis from the process and instead
> > publish all guidelines as a wiki?
> >
> > If it is the former, is it really worth it?
> >
> > Advantages with a wiki:
> >
> >+  It can be updated more easily
> >
> > Some drawbacks:
> >
> >-  It can be updated more easily
> >   (meaning they are less stable)
> >
> >-  Wikis tend to not be alive after some time, and are not that
> >   easy to find.  Just try to find the various YANG-related wikis
> >   we've tried to maintain over the years.
> >
> >-  Links in RFCs also have problems.  Sites are re-orginized etc.
> >   As an example, the link to the security guidelines template in
> >   RFC 6087 doesn't work anymore.
> >
> >-  People that are looking for a stable reference will have problems
> >   (I think Rob mentioned that IEEE still refer to RFC 6087 (which
> >   is understandable; that's the published version).
> >
> >-  Who maintains the Wiki, and what are the rules for updating it?
> >
> >
> > I suggest we have the tree-related guidelines (actually just a few
> > sentences) in the tree draft, and since 6087bis already refers to this
> > document it is not a big problem that guidelines are spread out over
> > several documents that are difficult to find.
> >
> >
> >
> > /martin
> >
> > ___
> > 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

Re: [netmod] tree diagram guidelines

[Robert Wilton]

I liked the suggestion from Chris Hopps:

I think that it was along the lines of ...

The RFC contains a reference at the top that states that updates to the 
guidelines is available on a wiki at 


Every few years the guidelines on the wiki can be folded into a latest 
version of the guidelines draft.


6087bis looks to be 3.5 years old.  Should folks, e.g. at BBF,, IEEE, or 
MEF be using the latest draft guidelines, or should then use the 
published RFC until 6087bis is actually republshed?


Thanks,
Rob


On 15/11/2017 10:14, Martin Bjorklund wrote:

Hi,

There was a proposal in the meeting today to have the guidelines for
tree diagrams in a wiki, instead of having them in 6087bis or in the
tree diagram document.

Was the proposal really to have a wiki for just the tree guidelines,
or was the proposal to withdraw 6087bis from the process and instead
publish all guidelines as a wiki?

If it is the former, is it really worth it?

Advantages with a wiki:

   +  It can be updated more easily

Some drawbacks:

   -  It can be updated more easily
  (meaning they are less stable)

   -  Wikis tend to not be alive after some time, and are not that
  easy to find.  Just try to find the various YANG-related wikis
  we've tried to maintain over the years.

   -  Links in RFCs also have problems.  Sites are re-orginized etc.
  As an example, the link to the security guidelines template in
  RFC 6087 doesn't work anymore.

   -  People that are looking for a stable reference will have problems
  (I think Rob mentioned that IEEE still refer to RFC 6087 (which
  is understandable; that's the published version).

   -  Who maintains the Wiki, and what are the rules for updating it?


I suggest we have the tree-related guidelines (actually just a few
sentences) in the tree draft, and since 6087bis already refers to this
document it is not a big problem that guidelines are spread out over
several documents that are difficult to find.



/martin

___
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] tree diagram guidelines

[Martin Bjorklund]

Hi,

There was a proposal in the meeting today to have the guidelines for
tree diagrams in a wiki, instead of having them in 6087bis or in the
tree diagram document.

Was the proposal really to have a wiki for just the tree guidelines,
or was the proposal to withdraw 6087bis from the process and instead
publish all guidelines as a wiki?

If it is the former, is it really worth it?

Advantages with a wiki:

  +  It can be updated more easily

Some drawbacks:

  -  It can be updated more easily
 (meaning they are less stable)

  -  Wikis tend to not be alive after some time, and are not that
 easy to find.  Just try to find the various YANG-related wikis
 we've tried to maintain over the years.

  -  Links in RFCs also have problems.  Sites are re-orginized etc.
 As an example, the link to the security guidelines template in
 RFC 6087 doesn't work anymore.

  -  People that are looking for a stable reference will have problems
 (I think Rob mentioned that IEEE still refer to RFC 6087 (which
 is understandable; that's the published version).

  -  Who maintains the Wiki, and what are the rules for updating it?


I suggest we have the tree-related guidelines (actually just a few
sentences) in the tree draft, and since 6087bis already refers to this
document it is not a big problem that guidelines are spread out over
several documents that are difficult to find.



/martin

___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod