On 21/03/2017 10:00, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]> 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.
Rob
/martin
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
.
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
