> On 21 Mar 2017, at 11:04, Robert Wilton <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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.
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 >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >> . >> > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
