On 01/11/2016 11:30 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: >>>>> In the XML shown, can you not >>>>> > >>> leave out all the fields that are not set? This would remove a lot >>>>> > >>> of noise. I do not understand what having both actions deny and >>>>> > >>> permit at the same time means. Did you validate the example against >>>>> > >>> the data model? (I also find the keys at the end somewhat strange >>>>> > >>> and not that NETCONF XML serialization actually requires the keys to >>>>> > >>> be sent first.) >>> > > >>>> > >> We used pyang sample xml skeleton to create the xml example. >>> > > >>> > > Whatever, the noise does not really help and the example might even >>> > > mislead people to believe they have to write down all unused leafs. >> > >> > We could edit the empty fields out, but from personal experience working >> > with customers, I was getting questions that the compiler output and the >> > examples are not matching (it was vendor data modeling language). > Which compiler's output? I find it very distracting to list unused > leafs. I assume most NETCONF implementations suppress unused leafs as > well. (I might be proven wrong but I would have a preference to not > use one that sends me tons of useless empty leafs.) >
I agree, the goal of this XML example is to match an RPC with the CLI example above it. No reason to include all possible leafs. Another state of confusion is an acl-type of 'ipv4-acl' with references to both ace-ipv6 and ace-ipv6 leafs _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
