Thanks all.
This issue is closed and we will apply this change right now, part of
the AUTH48 process.
Regards, Benoit
Dear all,
The document draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams-06 is in AUTH48.
It's time to close this issue, let me copy ietf@xxxxxxxx.
If you object to the change below, let me know before the end of the
week.
The changes are to the text, so that the text is adapted to what the
tools do. No need to change the examples, or tooling.
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- and choice nodes
ro for non-configuration data- and choice 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>.
and
OLD:
<name> is the name of the node
(<name>) means that the node is a choice node
:(<name>) means that the node is a case node
If the node is augmented into the tree from another module,
its name is printed as <prefix>:<name>, where <prefix> is the
prefix defined in the module where the node is defined.
NEW:
<name> is the name of the node
(<name>) means that the node is a choice node
:(<name>) means that the node is a case node
If the node is augmented into the tree from another module,
its name is printed as <prefix>:<name>, where <prefix> is the
prefix defined in the module where the node is defined.
If the node is a case node, there is no space before the
<name>.
Regards, Benoit
Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
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.
NEWER:
<flags> is one of:
rw for configuration data nodes
If we keep it also for choices, then it has to be "schema nodes".
ro for non-configuration data nodes, output parameters
to rpcs
and actions, and notification parameters
Same here.
Lada
-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>.
/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@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
.
