On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 9:08 AM Kent Watsen <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Let me clarify, I’m trying to close the "default 0” statement on the > "local-port” leafs issue. Whether rfc8407bis is updated is a secondary > concern. > > Andy (and others), do you believe this (to never set “default” or > “mandatory”) to be a best-practice for reusable groupings? Or more > specifically and better for me, do you think the "default 0” statement on > the "local-port” leafs is okay or should be removed (in the > tcl-client-server draft)? > > In this case, default 0 meant use whatever port you want. IMO that is a bad practice and should never be done. In this case, the default is for an application well-known port assignment, so the groupings for the application should set the default port. Kent > > Andy > > > On Sep 20, 2024, at 11:14 AM, Andy Bierman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I do not think any new YANG guidelines need to be added to the already > > completed rfc8407bis. > > This is a design decision based on the intended reuse of the groupings. > > > > Here is a common sense guideline: Document the grouping reuse > limitations > > in the description-stmt. > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 8:02 AM Kent Watsen <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> > >> Can folks please chime in on this discussion to help bring it to a > close? > >> > >> I rescinded my AUTH48 “approval” for the tcp-client-server draft pending > >> the outcome of this discussion. > >> > >> PS: I see that Thomas CC-ed NETMOD, which makes sense given a potential > >> update to rfc8407bis. > >> > >> Kent > >> > >> > >> On Sep 18, 2024, at 2:52 AM, [email protected] wrote: > >> > >> Dear Kent, Andy and Alex, > >> > >> I think Alex statement > >> > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/5Yaiom0B0lDTeSPOvgNfPIEFvBw/ > , > >> Andy's feedback and guidelines in > >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8407#section-4.4 resp. > >> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-15#section-4.4 > >> makes perfectly sense and I don't see why we should do else. As an > >> author, I suggest to add in section 4 of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis > based > >> on the conclusion of this discussion guidelines on reusable YANG > groupings. > >> > >> Best wishes > >> Thomas > >> > >> *From:* Kent Watsen <[email protected]> > >> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 18, 2024 3:12 AM > >> *To:* Andy Bierman <[email protected]> > >> *Cc:* [email protected]; > >> [email protected] > >> *Subject:* [netconf] Re: Default statements on udp-client-server > groupings > >> > >> *Be aware:* This is an external email. > >> > >> Hi Andy, > >> > >> > >> The main purpose for YANG defaults is ease of use. > >> If there are less things to configure then the device is easier to use. > >> Without a default port then this parameter becomes mandatory to > configure > >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
