Re: [netmod] choice/case in tree diagrams

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Tue, 06 March 2018 13:00 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 1744F12778D for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Mar 2018 05:00:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 JJhNQQpuGAFe for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Mar 2018 05:00:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EF3C127735 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Mar 2018 05:00:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [173.38.220.45]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2B5021AE0339; Tue, 6 Mar 2018 14:00:24 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2018 14:00:23 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <20180306.140023.524272795634334481.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de
Cc: vladimir@transpacket.com, netmod@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <20180306124825.joukx2lvszeehrzt@elstar.local>
References: <c9a60629-a1de-0b5b-77a0-595f614bcad8@transpacket.com> <20180306.104411.829341372037212681.mbj@tail-f.com> <20180306124825.joukx2lvszeehrzt@elstar.local>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 24.5 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/cPxGIQCdwiu4mrVd3Nz8H8AVEIk>
Subject: Re: [netmod] choice/case in tree diagrams
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, 06 Mar 2018 13:00:27 -0000

Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 10:44:11AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > 
> > OLD:
> > 
> >        <flags> is one of:
> >          rw  for configuration data
> >          ro  for non-configuration data, output parameters to rpcs
> >              and actions, and notification parameters
> >          -w  for input parameters to rpcs and actions
> >          -u  for uses of a grouping
> >          -x  for rpcs and actions
> >          -n  for notifications
> >          mp  for nodes containing a "mount-point" extension statement
> > 
> > NEW:
> > 
> >        <flags> is one of:
> >          rw  for configuration data
> >          ro  for non-configuration data, output parameters to rpcs
> >              and actions, and notification parameters
> >          -w  for input parameters to rpcs and actions
> >          -u  for uses of a grouping
> >          -x  for rpcs and actions
> >          -n  for notifications
> >          mp  for nodes containing a "mount-point" extension statement
> > 
> >          case nodes do not have any <flags>.
> 
> I still think that it should be 'data node' instead of just
> 'data'. While not formally imported, the term 'data node' has a
> definition in RFC 7950.

But choice is not a data node.  So if anything, it should be:

           rw  for configuration schema nodes
           ro  for non-configuration schema nodes, output parameters to rpcs
               and actions, and notification parameters

or possibly just

           rw  for configuration nodes
           ro  for non-configuration nodes, output parameters to rpcs
               and actions, and notification parameters


But then an "rpc" is also a "non-configuration schema node"... so now
it is not really clear which rule to follow for an rpc.


/martin



> 
> NEWER:
> 
>         <flags> is one of:
>           rw  for configuration data nodes
>           ro  for non-configuration data nodes, output parameters to rpcs
>               and actions, and notification parameters
>           -w  for input parameters to rpcs and actions
>           -u  for uses of a grouping
>           -x  for rpcs and actions
>           -n  for notifications
>           mp  for nodes containing a "mount-point" extension statement
> 
>           case nodes do not have any <flags>.
>  
> /js
> 
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>