OK, thanks for mentioning inet:ip-address. The example (that you were referring to in the email) does have dotted-quad already, so I did not know what you meant.
I will change from inet:ip-address to yang:dotted-quad and refer to imported router-id typedef. And I assume we are now good with the example. Is there anything else? Will post -16 by tomorrow. Thanks --- Alex From: i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Benoit Claise Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 9:53 AM To: Martin Bjorklund <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [i2rs] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-14: (with DISCUSS) On 12/14/2017 6:42 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Hi, "Alexander Clemm" <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> wrote: Hi Benoit, I am not sure I understand your comment? I think the issue is that the leaf-list router-id should be of type yang:dotted-quad, and not inet:ip-address. Right, imported from ietf-routing-types, in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-17 typedef router-id { type yang:dotted-quad; description "A 32-bit number in the dotted quad format assigned to each router. This number uniquely identifies the router within an Autonomous System."; } Regards, Benoit I was referring to the typedef router-id, which we define in example-ospf-topology. There is no such typedef. There's an area-id though. /martin We made many changes to make it clear that this is just an example, not a part of the actual model, reflected in the description, naming, removal of contact and revision information, etc. The tree diagram in section 5 is for the ietf-l3-unicast-topology module. It is not part of an example. The same is true for the grouping l3-node-attributes. It is part of the model. The example-ospf-topology model serves as an example as to how the model might be refined/extended for other topologies. As stated: "This module is intended to serve as an example that illustrates how the general topology model can be refined across multiple levels." The sentence at the top of the section "Extending the model - Example OSPF Topology - Model Overview" states (slightly rephrased with inserted ", in this case") to "The following model shows how the Layer 3 Unicast topology model can be extended, in this case to cover OSFP topologies." Does this clarify or did you mean something else? Thanks --- Alex -----Original Message----- From: i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Benoit Claise Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 3:33 AM To: The IESG <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [i2rs] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-14: (with DISCUSS) Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-14: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- We're making progress. Thanks. 4. leaf-list router-id { type inet:ip-address; description "Router-id for the node"; } My initial DISCUSS was: We don't want to wait for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-00 (btw, we should expedite this publication), but any good reason why this is aligned with its definition? typedef router-id { type yang:dotted-quad; description "A 32-bit number in the dotted quad format assigned to each router. This number uniquely identifies the router within an Autonomous System."; } My NEW DISCUSS: since is in IETF LC and on the telechat on Oct 12th, it makes sense to import its router-id <ALEX> This is only used in the example. The point of the example is to show how the model can be extended, not to define something normative, hence I don't think there is a need to introduce a dependency here which would only be distracting. </ALEX> Can you help me understand how this is an example? Section 5 module: ietf-l3-unicast-topology augment /nw:networks/nw:network/nw:network-types: +--rw l3-unicast-topology! augment /nw:networks/nw:network: +--rw l3-topology-attributes +--rw name? string +--rw flag* l3-flag-type augment /nw:networks/nw:network/nw:node: +--rw l3-node-attributes +--rw name? inet:domain-name +--rw flag* node-flag-type +--rw router-id* inet:ip-address +--rw prefix* [prefix] +--rw prefix inet:ip-prefix +--rw metric? uint32 +--rw flag* prefix-flag-type And section 6: grouping l3-node-attributes { description "L3 node scope attributes"; container l3-node-attributes { description "Containing node attributes"; leaf name { type inet:domain-name; description "Node name"; } leaf-list flag { type node-flag-type; description "Node flags"; } leaf-list router-id { type inet:ip-address; description "Router-id for the node"; } list prefix { key "prefix"; description "A list of prefixes along with their attributes"; uses l3-prefix-attributes; } } } A different view at https://www.yangcatalog.org/yang-search/yang_tree.php?module=ietf-l3-unicast -topology# _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs .
_______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
