Do you mean an identity with no ‘base’ is abstract identity? It’s not defined in RFC 6020. In some cases, an identity without ‘base’ might make sense.
发件人: netmod [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 Xiang Li 发送时间: 2015年10月19日 11:27 收件人: [email protected] 主题: Re: [netmod] I suggest add 'abstract' statement as 'identity''s sub statement 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
