From: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]> Sent: 16 July 2020 19:16 [As an individual]
I would say that the diagram would represent A augments B, since A has a dependency on B. From a quick search this also appears the direction that a dependency arrow is represented in UML, in case that matters. <tp> Yes that is my instinct but it could be that I have been brainwashed by a load of I-D doing it that way and now I have one going the other way I find myself wondering. Tom Petch But I could also see how others could see the relationship the other way round. I agree that doing it consistently is helpful. Regards, Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: netmod <[email protected]> On Behalf Of tom petch > Sent: 15 July 2020 16:51 > To: NETMOD Working Group <[email protected]> > Subject: [netmod] A ---- > B > > TEAS yang has a mountain of augment and several I-D represent that > graphically > > +-----+ +-----+ > I I I I > I A I -----> I B I > I I I I > +-----+ +-----+ > In some I-D this means A augments B > In other I-D this means B augments A > I would like consistency. Is one approach more logical than the other? > > Tom Petch > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
