Hi all,
I notice an identity named 'interface-type' was defined in RFC 7223 (
A YANG Data Model for Interface Management). This identity is an abstract
identity, vendors can define their real
Identity based it. But it's lack of a means to identify this identity
'interface-type' is abstract, so 'interface-type' can be accepted as
valid value of the leaf based this identity.
So I suggest add 'abstract' statement as 'identity's sub statement in
YANG1.1. This statement is optional, default value is false.
If abstract identity is defined, 'abstract true' MUST be defined, and this
identity's name cannot be accepted as valid value of the leaf
based this identity .
For example:
identity interface-type {
abstract true;
description
"Base identity from which specific interface types are
derived.";
}
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
