On 01/15/2018 09:41 PM, Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
Hi,
I have reviewed and implemented (apart from schema mount specific
functionality) draft-ietfetf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams-04 and found
the following issues:
==sec 2.6. Node Representation==
1. To correctly reflect the current pyang output one needs to add '--'
between <status> and <flags>.
OLD:
<status> <flags> <name> <opts> <type> <if-features>
NEW:
<status>--<flags> <name> <opts> <type> <if-features>
There is also undocumented alignment space count function before
<type> that pyang uses to align the <type> fields of child data leafs
with common ancestor. If this is specified in the draft the tree
output can be deterministic and for me this is an advantage. This is
currently one of the few underspecified pieces of the tree format so I
had to check pyang implementation in oder to generate same alignment
space counts and binary identical tree output results.
2. It is unclear which <flags> option should be used for rpc and
action input/output and child nodes and the notification child nodes.
pyang uses '-w' for input and input/* and 'ro' for output and output/*:
module: ietf-netconf-partial-lock
rpcs:
+---x partial-lock
| +---w input
| | +---w select* string
...
pyang also uses '--' as <flags> for augmentation data nodes for
actions input.
...
augment /rt:routing-state/rt:ribs/rt:rib/rt:active-route/rt:input:
+---- destination-address? inet:ipv4-address
...
3. pyang is prefixing choice node names with the parent <flags> e.g.
+--ro (next-hop-options) while case nodes are not prefixed. I guess
this is a bug in pyang since it is not specified in the draft but
choice nodes prefixed with parent <flags> are also present in the sec
4 and 4.1 examples?
Ignore 3. choice had a config substatement which explains the presence
of <flags>.
4. This bit I found confusing. I propose this change to unambiguously
describe the current pyang format.
OLD:
* for a leaf-list or list
[<keys>] for a list's keys
NEW:
* for a leaf-list or list without keys
* [<keys>] for a list with keys
Vladimir
On 01/01/2018 11:01 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
Greetings,
We hope the new year is a time to make great progess on outstanding
documents before preparation for the London IETF begins in earnest.
This starts a two-week working group last call on:
YANG Tree Diagrams
draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams/
Please send email to the list indicating your support or concerns.
We are particularly interested in statements of the form:
* I have reviewed this draft and found no issues.
* I have reviewed this draft and found the following issues: ...
Thank you,
NETMOD WG Chairs
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
