On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 01:55:18AM +0000, Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) wrote: > Hi all, > > I took a look at section "3.1.2 Backwards-compatibility rules for config > false and output data" of > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-module-versioning-02. > > Here are some suggestions (mostly just editorial - I agree with the general > spirit of what's in here). > > (A) Valuespace > > Valuespace is defined in module versioning 02: > o Valuespace: The valuespace of a leaf or leaf-list is the set of > values that the schema node may have according to the type and > constraint statements of the YANG model. > > It seems to be a more complete definition than "value space" in RFC7950 > (which doesn't seem to take into account "range", "pattern", etc statements): > > o value space: For a data type; the set of values permitted by the > > data type. For a leaf or leaf-list instance; the value space of > > its data type. > > Should we mention that this definition replaces/supercedes that of 7950 (at > least for the scope of the module versioning doc) ?
Please no. RFC 7950 says data type and for me this includes everything that defines a type, including the semantics carried in the type's description statement. We do not need to fix what is not broken. Why do we need a new definition at all? If definitions in RFC 7950 are broken, then we need to fix it in YANG next. /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 [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
