except that percent doesn't really seem like a routing-specific data type! (perhaps the "right" thing to do is to deprecate, and eventually obsolete, the routing one and define it in a core netmod module?)
On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 at 14:59, Benoit Claise <bclaise= [email protected]> wrote: > 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]> > <[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 >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
