On 2023-01-12, at 13:38, Italo Busi <Italo.Busi=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > Moreover, I am not sure whether restricting the strings would solve the out > of memory: what happens if a huge YANG list is configured?
SGML had an elaborate system for placing arbitrary restrictions on some “capacity” parameters. People who write the SGML documents never found a good way to nail down these numbers. The limits either got in the way, way too early, or they didn’t actually help. A significant innovation in the definition of XML was to get rid of all these “capacity” arbitrary restrictions. Please don’t commit a major regression here. Grüße, Carsten BTW, random example: There was an arbitrary restriction on some security data type recently that limited that to 64 bytes (*). Turns out an example in the draft already used 66 bytes. People discussed upgrading the limit so this could be accommodated, until somebody mentioned they’d need 4000 or something. All the arbitrary limits you come up with during standardization are essentially instances of “proof by lack of imagination”… (*) I could look up which, but this would delay sending this message. _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
