Hi Robert, Thanks for noticing this. I see that this inconsistency is already steeped in with most of the YANG models that are using inet:ip-address and only a few (MLDP, DETNET, NVO3, I2NSF, BGP-Policy) opting for the inet:ip-address-no-zone.
That said, "ip-address-no-zone" is the right thing to do and I have updated it in the latest version. https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-18 Thanks! Dhruv On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 2:57 PM Robert Varga <[email protected]> wrote: > On 23/10/2021 13:33, [email protected] wrote: > > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > > This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element WG of the IETF. > > > > Title : A YANG Data Model for Path Computation > Element Communications Protocol (PCEP) > > Authors : Dhruv Dhody > > Jonathan Hardwick > > Vishnu Pavan Beeram > > Jeff Tantsura > > Filename : draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-17.txt > > A minor question: > > I noticed the draft is using inet:ip-address, which may include a zone > index. Is that intentional, or should inet:ip-address-no-zone be used > instead? > > Regards, > Robert > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
