On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 03:45:49PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > 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 >
Good. > 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. I do not agree. 'data' is entirely undefined - it means nothing. How do I know that 'data' includes 'choice nodes'? I think we better fix this here. I agree that a general careful check of terminology should be done in an update but I do not see why AUTH48 says we should not fix the problem that was discovered. And for me, a fix is not a fix if things are left ambiguous. /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
