Re: [netmod] tree diagrams - flags

Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> Tue, 21 March 2017 15:55 UTC

Return-Path: <lhotka@nic.cz>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7688C1294C8 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 08:55:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nic.cz
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6tj3Nme9eRKU for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 08:55:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.nic.cz (mail.nic.cz [IPv6:2001:1488:800:400::400]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0AAA41294B7 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 08:55:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:718:1a02:1:84d4:35a4:2461:4431] (unknown [IPv6:2001:718:1a02:1:84d4:35a4:2461:4431]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6648F603B3; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 16:55:19 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nic.cz; s=default; t=1490111719; bh=R9TKs2LQSUgN0v/TEu9Xkv+ZfX7mwRpSybbVKDn7mEY=; h=From:Date:To; b=smIeYAKuSC7wfLL9Xm2kh7LyOrMtRuKwhazKRWD020NXzk8sQ7DBleacRW9vUUrSH kRlE4D1ffQwSZVbd8mQ6OeMOeVcNzyotghOEKxbP8w5GR+FpIkqmgNgOvNHmxz5zY8 8FZt7vGGv+P0xpsduIfZbIVepGb4gsooXXOt7w6Y=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
From: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
In-Reply-To: <20170321141123.GB35926@elstar.local>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 16:55:18 +0100
Cc: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>, netmod@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <628D63D4-0250-4150-BE2A-F90298499473@nic.cz>
References: <20170321102533.GC35449@elstar.local> <05D066C2-08AA-4140-9399-87654141F821@nic.cz> <70eb5dec-2b98-5e14-0150-0ee3e55ae99f@cisco.com> <E8B217D8-9961-49ED-B035-D16CDE957270@nic.cz> <20170321141123.GB35926@elstar.local>
To: Jürgen Schönwälder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at mail
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/AZR6cdu4SuJEVtFKTsvyfVrxO5g>
Subject: Re: [netmod] tree diagrams - flags
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 15:55:23 -0000

> On 21 Mar 2017, at 15:11, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 01:01:58PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>> 
>>> On 21 Mar 2017, at 12:50, Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> So I am suggesting perhaps just having:
>>> 
>>> <flags> is one of:
>>>  c  for configuration data
>>>  x  for rpcs and actions
>>>  n  for notifications
>>> 
>>> module: tree-sample
>>>  +--c config-true-container
>>>  |  +--c param?   string
>>>  +--- config-false-container
>>>  |  +-- value?   string
>>>  +--c inline-action
>>>  |  +--x- action
>>>  |     +--x input
>>>  |     |  +--x in?   string
>>>  |     +--x output
>>>  |        +--x out?   string
>>>  +--c inline-notification
>>>     +--n notification
>>>        +--n duration?   string
>> 
>> I think the "x" and "n" is only needed next to the name of rpc/action/notification. So my version would be:
>> 
>> <flags> is one of:
>>  c  for configuration data
>>  x  for rpcs and actions
>>  n  for notifications
>> 
>> module: tree-sample
>>  +--c config-true-container
>>  |  +--c param?   string
>>  +--- config-false-container
>>  |  +--- value?   string
>>  +--c inline-action
>>  |  +--x action
>>  |     +--- input
>>  |     |  +--- in?   string
>>  |     +--- output
>>  |        +--- out?   string
>>  +--c inline-notification
>>     +--n notification
>>        +--- duration?   string
>> 
> 
> Single character flags work for me as well. Since I have modules with
> pretty complex RPC inputs (more than a single page in RFC formatting),
> I think it is useful to be able to see that one is still starting at
> an RPC input tree and not a regular data tree or a notification tree.

Even with long RPC parameter lists the indentation should make it obvious what belongs where. Another option might be to label every input parameter with "xi" or "i" and output with "xo"/"o", and remove the "input" and "output" nodes. This would make the output shorter and narrower.

> So I tend to like Rob's proposal a bit more.

Note however that Rob's proposal doesn't distinguish input and output parameters, all are labelled with "x".

Lada

> 
> /js
> 
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

--
Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67