Thanks for the feedback! Please see inline. On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 1:43 AM, wangxin <[email protected]> wrote:
> Here I have several questions: > > > > 1. I think there are some dependencies between constrains and > capabilities, as RFC7285 says “This parameter MUST NOT be specified if this > resource's "capabilities" field (Section 11.3.2.4) indicate that constraint > support is not available.” So, how to imply this dependency in YANG model? > In line 869, it seems that there is not a check whether resource's > "capabilities" field is available. > [sx] Good catch! I added a line to express this constraint. On the other hand, I am not sure the burden of this constraint should fall on the server side, since this is in rpc-input. > > 2. In line 395, it seems that there is always version tag in meta > field, but I think IRD response does not need version tag in its header. > [sx] You're totally right. I fixed it. > > 3. In line 737, does there need capabilities field for the output > of endpoint-property-service and filtered-cost-map-service(line 750)? I > think capabilities is for IRD response. > [sx] See 11.4.1.4. and 11.3.2.4. They are not in the ALTO examples as they are optional fields I believe. -Xiao > > > I am a beginner of alto and YANG, so if there is any basic > misunderstanding, please forgive me. > > > Thanks! > > Xin > > _______________________________________________ > alto mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto > >
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
