On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 02:00:23PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]> 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.
EVEN NEVER
<flags> is one of:
rw for configuration data nodes and choice 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>.
My point is that 'data node' is a defined term in RFC 7950 and using
defined terms generally adds clarity.
/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/>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
