Hi Kent,
Thanks for the response!
On 3 March, 2016 at 11:32:39 PM, Kent Watsen ([email protected]) wrote:
> In this case, we never use the actual namespace (i.e., http://a.tld and
> http://b.tld) so calling it ‘namespace qualified’ appears ambiguous. Should
> it be simply referred to as ‘module-qualified’?
It is a bit of a misnomer, and perhaps could be improved, but Section 4 defines
“namespace-qualified” as “name of module”:
o namespace-qualified - the data node identifier is prefixed with
the name of the module in which the data node is defined,
separated from the data node identifier by the colon character
(":”).
Thanks. Is there a reason to call this namespace, when we also have a namespace
statement in the module? It seems to present an opportunity to cause confusion
with little benefit?
> Secondarily, the example in Section 6.8 does not actually use the name of the
> module, it rather uses the prefix (if for the interface-type leaf). This
> doesn’t seem to be explained anywhere within the text. Is this a mistake?
The module is YANG, and in YANG the prefix is used, so “if” is correct. Below
the example module is a JSON snippet, where you’ll find a module’s full name
qualifying the identity.
Ah, sorry — you’re right.
> I also didn’t understand why an identityref value encodes the namespace in
> the actual value?
It can also be simple form (w/o namespace) if the identity is defined in the
same module...
Agreed, I’m more wondering why *ever* carry it.
> It seems like the “base” of the identityref should qualify all possible
> values here;
You mean that the namespace is implicitly defined in the YANG, so having it
also in the JSON is redundant?
Yes. Any identity value that extends that base must be unique AIUI, so each of
those values then defines its namespace. Why do we carry it in the JSON?
Thanks again.
r._______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
