Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 02:00:23PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwael...@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.
> 
> 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.

I agree that using well defined terms add clarity.  However, the
proposed text is not quite right.  Possibly:

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

But maybe it is actually better to leave the original text, and go
through the entire document wrt terminology in a future update (if
necessary).  After all, the document is in AUTH48.


/martin



> /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
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Reply via email to