I know we've discussed this before, but it is not covered in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9907/
For read-only data nodes that have more restrictive types (e.g., a range), should these ranges be reflected in the read-only nodes? We'd still want to provide visibility to the data nodes even if this didn't conform to the type restrictions (e.g., range or enum). For example, operational state containing a protocol packet field with a value that falls outside the allowed range received from a peer. Should this be done with a union with the semantically correct type as the first choice? This is a recurring theme in YANG model reviews... Thanks, Acee _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
