On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 02:58:22PM +0200, Benoit Claise wrote:
> On 20/07/2020 11:19, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> writes:
> >
> > > - Percentages are frequently used in YANG models but usages differ a
> > > lot in precision and range. It is not clear what the proper
> > > generic definition of a percentage type would be and whether it is
> > > worth having it.
> > >
> > > RFC 7950 example:
> > >
> > > typedef percent { type uint8 { range "0 .. 100"; } }
> > >
> > > RFC 8294:
> > >
> > > typedef percentage { type uint8 { range "0..100"; } }
> > >
> > > I-Ds:
> > > typedef percentage { type decimal64 { fraction-digits 5; } }
> > > typedef percentile { type decimal64 { fraction-digits 2; } }
> > >
> > > The yang catalogue seems to be down. :-(
> > >
> > > - Proposal: do not add a percentage type since it is trivial to
> > > define a context specific percentage type that matches range and
> > > precision requirements (and there is already a definition in RFC
> > > 8294 for those who need exactly that definition).
> > I agree with this proposal. It is also possible to use
> >
> > units percent;
> >
> > where necessary.
> On the other hand, when I look at the numerous percent/percentage
> occurrences in YANG model, it doesn't hurt to define that typedef.
>
> https://yangcatalog.org/yang-search/ => search on "node name" and typedef
> only
> We can find 56 entries from IETF, IEEE, BBF, OC, MEF, vendors
> Most of them points to:
>
> *typedef* percent {
> *type* uint8 {
> *range* "0 .. 100";
>
> }
> }
>
But that one is already defined in RFC 8294 in ietf-routing-types.
Does it make sense to define it again in yang-types?
/js
--
Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
