On 30/07/2020 15:25, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 02:58:22PM +0200, Benoit Claise wrote:
On 20/07/2020 11:19, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]> 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?
My point was taht it makes sense to group typedefs in a few documents:
RFC6991, 6991bis (hopefully published soon) and .... my bad, I forgot
that RFC 8294 is "Common YANG _data types_ for the routing area"
So we're good. Thanks.
Regards, Benoit
/js
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
