On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 07:02:04PM +0000, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > All, > In the context iana-routing-types.yang, we’ve been having a discussion of the > merits of identities vs enums. We’ve followed the lead of RFC 7224 and used > identities which allow augmentation. However, for IANA code points, there > could be merit in having the type represent the actual numeric value. Any > thoughts on this? > > In the next version of YANG, it would be useful for a base identity to allow > it to have a "base-type" (mutually exclusive of "identity-ref"). For all > identities a "base-value" would be allowed as long as it conformed to the > constraints of the actual or inherited (via “identity-ref”) “base-type”. >
The question here really is who is charge of controlling assignments of a name space. - If there is a single authority controlling the assignments, an enum works fine. - If the assignments are not controlled by a single authority, an identity works fine. We sometimes have situations that are somewhere in between, i.e., a central authority controlling assignments but delegating parts of the name space to other authoritities. I agree, we do not have good support to model this explicitly in YANG today. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
