On 10/18/2015 10:13 PM, fengchong (C) wrote:
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.
You can use the fact this identity does not have a "base":
rfc6030: 7.16.2
If no "base" statement is present, the identity is defined from scratch.
However note an identity can also be defined based on another "derived"
identity,
not just the identity defined from scratch!
-Xiang Li
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
