On Tue, 30 Apr 2019, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
I think we go in circles in this thread and I will stop explaining
things again and again. I suggest people look at the next revision
and if anything remains unclear, people can send concrete edit
proposals.
You don't have to explain it. Let me try in a different way.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-9.1
"For most types, there is a single canonical representation of the
type's values."
Is it generally ok that the canonical value potentially represents a
different bit field/value than what the client sent?
If it is (and that's fine by me), I think this should be made more clear
in the next rev of the YANG specification. I feel the whole
"canonical/lexical format" concept is underspecified, for instance in the
case of ipv6-prefix. In the text you suggested before that fixes
ipv6-prefix. Do we have more types where this needs to be fixed?
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
