Re: [netmod] draft netmod charter update proposal

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Tue, 21 March 2017 10:00 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 AEFC9127010 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 03:00:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, 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 uvjfc_CCqTo7 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 03:00:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 445081200F1 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 03:00:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [173.38.220.40]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 910D71AE0310; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 11:00:33 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 11:00:39 +0100
Message-Id: <20170321.110039.248054157847225867.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de
Cc: lhotka@nic.cz, netmod@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <20170321094313.GA35449@elstar.local>
References: <20170321080422.GB35044@elstar.local> <0298C599-E206-4777-A95C-5F58E0D519AA@nic.cz> <20170321094313.GA35449@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/fVe2XUDRCcxN7gUMZIx8CkaCkuc>
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 10:00:38 -0000

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.


/martin