IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal

Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> Tue, 21 March 2017 10:09 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 2B18C1242F7 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 03:09:16 -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 rutupFu9Nvvf for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 03:09:14 -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 634DB1296BA for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 03:09:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:718:1a02:1:d20:8e4d:8768:16f6] (unknown [IPv6:2001:718:1a02:1:d20:8e4d:8768:16f6]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EFE1161FDE; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 11:09:12 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nic.cz; s=default; t=1490090953; bh=wp4xpPUkNU5mqHhVbX/JOcd3/OJJ6xynR41Wnoms2gQ=; h=From:Date:To; b=Bw3abm1AtEHyV95ncilX4PNY1sy22SrMiyRObI9f6H04SGsnqSfAB2q6+u12cfvuJ JDhvIY1o5IfMyogkjBi0R9VN5xfeYoGeKXwHfNji0e2NPNbJnLCws+VtCcTT7N2ENo ILei+HuE+TXopKoCvQxh7gFAOQ3dCYXIwi8ncYzs=
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: <044cac42-2fdc-49c9-163b-795258edd153@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 11:09:12 +0100
Cc: Martin Björklund <mbj@tail-f.com>, Jürgen Schönwälder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, netmod@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F1E725D8-58F4-480F-91E8-429F1E911654@nic.cz>
References: <20170321080422.GB35044@elstar.local> <0298C599-E206-4777-A95C-5F58E0D519AA@nic.cz> <20170321094313.GA35449@elstar.local> <20170321.110039.248054157847225867.mbj@tail-f.com> <044cac42-2fdc-49c9-163b-795258edd153@cisco.com>
To: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
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/Jv60ImMcZVJLJhXa3xL7H56sxSk>
Subject: Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal
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 10:09:16 -0000

> On 21 Mar 2017, at 11:04, Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 21/03/2017 10:00, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>> Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 10:13:40AM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>> I do not agree that config true/false just means read write and I
>>> certainly do not want semantics of statements to be changed.
>> +1
>> 
>> [...]
>> 
>>>> BTW, we use rw/ro in tree diagrams.
>>> Which is a mis-nomer (tree diagrams were inherited from the SNMP world
>>> and somehow the rw/ro distinction was kept even though it is
>>> technically wrong).
>> Correct.  Nowadays we are using ct vs. cf, so maybe we should use that
>> in the trees.  rw vs ro works better visually though - "t" and "f"
>> look fairly similar.
> Perhaps only mark the config false nodes?  I.e. if it isn't specified it is config true.

And what about operations and notifications? Tree diagrams show "ro" but config true/false doesn't really make sense for them.

Lada

> 
> Rob
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> /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

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email