>>> * Would it make sense to further refine your contact leafs to check for the >>> MUST URI schemas?
(They are URI schemes, not URI schemas.) It is generally a mistake to hardwire specific URI schemes in a specification that uses URIs to provide flexibility. (What if in a few years you would want to use a newly popular instant messaging URI scheme for contacting people?) But let me go with the program. >> I know what you want, but I'm not quite sure it is well specified how to do >> it. Patterns in general seem underspecified. If someone can explain how to >> do it, I'm happy to add. Iβm not sure whether you are saying YANG patterns are underspecified: They are not. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7950.html#section-9.4.5 If you want to know more about the type of regexp that is being used there, you may want to check https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-jsonpath-iregexp-00.html#name-xsd-regexps (Section 5 tells you how to map the iregexp subset into regexp dialects you may be more familiar with. While iregexps restrict the regexps a little further than YANG does, the iregexp subset is usually what you actually need and also is essentially the subset that actually works the way many people would think they do. If you see a non-iregexp YANG pattern, Iβll bet you a beer that this is actually broken [1].) > I can't recall having seen this done before, (Maybe because premature restriction of the schemes is, after all, not such a bright thing to do?) > but I was thinking along the lines of: > > type inet:uri { > pattern "(mailto)|(https?)|(tel):.*"; > } Wrong precedence; I think you want > pattern "(mailto|https?|tel):.*"; GrΓΌΓe, Carsten [1]: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/X58DKp6HdJapV_gtC4x82fDt0dg> _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
