Jason,
Following on the example I gave on the other thread here is what I see for the
admin/oper leafs.
> On Jul 17, 2017, at 12:22 PM, Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
> <jason.ste...@nokia.com> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> A note in Rob Wilton’s presentation today in rtgwg mentioned something about
> consistency in the value space for config vs state leafs. The NMDA approach
> results in the same leaf for both config & state in many cases (at least for
> the cases where the separate config & state leafs were only there to
> represent intended vs applied config).
>
> But aren’t there some cases where the value space for state will be different
> than the value space for config ? I’m thinking of the basic admin/oper state
> for interfaces for example where config may allow enable/disable but state
> may have additional values like ‘testing’. If the config & state value
> spaces aren’t 100% the same, are module designers recommended to create a
> separate state leaf ?
leaf administrative-state {
type boolean {
description
“When set to true, the interface is set to be
administratively up. The actual state of the
interface is reflected in the corresponding
operational-state leaf.”;
}
}
leaf operational-state {
config false;
type enumeration {
enum up;
enum down;
enum testing;
enum negotiating;
}
}
>
> Rgds,
> Jason
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>
Mahesh Jethanandani
mjethanand...@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
