On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 4:28 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < [email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 02, 2017 at 10:39:57AM +0000, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > > > > This is not an effort to change or bifurcate the YANG 1.1. It is simply > to > > RECOMMEND a proper subset of XSD pattern that is more portable. > > > > If you implement YANG as it is defined, pattern are portable. Given > this, I do not understand the notion of 'more portable'. > > Anyway, it seems that those who want a more portable subset do not > even agree on what that subset is. Perhaps people pushing for this > should go and write an I-D that explains why a 'more portable' subset > is needed (which problems are we fixing), that defines such a 'more > portable subset', and which includes the reasoning how the subset has > been determined. > > I do not agree that the YANG pattern contains a string that is both a POSIX and XSD regular expression. The RFC is very clear it contains an XSD expression. Pretending it is both is a hack that does not even seem to work 100%, so it is not reliable. If the community wants to support both XSD and POSIX expressions, then the proper engineering solution is to introduce a new statement that is defined to contain a POSIX expression. This can be done with a YANG extension now and added to YANG 2.0 later. > /js > Andy > > -- > 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 >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
