On 10/18/2015 10:32 PM, fengchong (C) wrote:
Do you mean an identity with no ‘base’ is abstract identity?
Not exactly. Note any identity is said to be defined as "abstract",
"unique", and "untyped". See rfc6020 7.16:
7.16 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6020#section-7.16>. The
identity Statement
The "identity" statement is used to define a new globally unique,
abstract, and untyped identity. Its only purpose is to denote its
name, semantics, and existence. An identity can either be defined
from scratch or derived from a base identity.
It’s not defined in RFC 6020. In some cases, an identity without
‘base’ might make sense.
RFC6020 does define this.
7.16.2 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6020#section-7.16.2>. The
base Statement
The "base" statement, which is optional, takes as an argument a
string that is the name of an existing identity, from which the new
identity is derived. If no "base" statement is present, the identity
is defined from scratch.
-Xiang Li
*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
