IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netmod] "input"/"output" in tree diagrams

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Tue, 23 October 2018 14:12 UTC

Return-Path: <mbj@tail-f.com>
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 70364130EA3 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 07:12:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 pDWnjqIj-EPf for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 07:12:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29AF1130EF7 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 07:12:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [173.38.220.61]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 49E1D1AE0187; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 16:11:59 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 16:11:58 +0200
Message-Id: <20181023.161158.1837797983440028086.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: jernej.tuljak@mg-soft.si
Cc: netmod@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <f567e98a-8e8c-2ea7-c5f5-f2288b275174@mg-soft.si>
References: <f567e98a-8e8c-2ea7-c5f5-f2288b275174@mg-soft.si>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 24.5 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/bcTqI0POy1YrLJGV-WxJiG_KLto>
Subject: Re: [netmod] "input"/"output" in tree diagrams
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 23 Oct 2018 14:12:04 -0000

Hi,

Jernej Tuljak <jernej.tuljak@mg-soft.si> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> am I reading RFC8340 correctly by assuming "input" and "output" nodes
> are not to be part of tree diagrams and that instead input/output
> parameters are now children to the "rpc" or "action" node,
> distinguished solely via -w/ro flags?

I hope not, or that was not the intention anyway.

>   rpcs:
>     +---x get-schema
>        +---w identifier! string
>        +---w version?    string
>        +---w format?     identityref
>        +--ro data?

pyang outputs

    +---x get-schema
       +---w input
       |  +---w identifier    string
       |  +---w version?      string
       |  +---w format?       identityref
       +--ro output
          +--ro data?   <anyxml>


> Only "input parameters" and "output parameters" are mentioned, which
> seems to suggest data node children of "input" and "output", but not
> themselves. It also says nothing about which flag they receive, if
> they are intended to appear.

Yes I can see how this could be clarified.


/martin

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email