What Kristian has proposed makes sense, in favor.
Cheers, Jeff On Apr 1, 2019, 1:09 PM -0700, Kristian Larsson <[email protected]>, wrote: > Hello Mahesh, > > On 2019-04-01 21:40, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote: > > > > > On Apr 1, 2019, at 10:29 AM, Martin Bjorklund <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I know that this type is convenient, esp. if you use it for manual > > > input, but I wonder if it really is good practice to squeeze two > > > values into one. > > > > Agree. The combination makes sense for CLI, but for modeling the address > > and prefix should be separate. > > Okay, then why do we have an ip-prefix data type at all? With the same > line of argument you apply, it should be split up. > > So you're the third person bringing up CLI. I don't get this at all. I > don't see how CLI are different from everything else. This is about data > modeling and data modeling is about expressing the world in a data > modeling language. It's like painting a picture but instead of a brush > you have a schema language like YANG. What do you see? Express it. It > doesn't matter if the purpose is a CLI, a web page or just exposing it > via NETCONF for another system to consume. > > I think address-and-prefix-length is natural. JUNOS uses this format. XR > uses this format (for IPv6 at least). Nokia SROS uses this format. > > We have written a bunch of models where the lack of this IMHO makes them > less elegant. I'd like for there to be an IETF standard data type to > make those models more elegant. > > Kind regards, > Kristian. > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
