From: Pce <[email protected]> on behalf of Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> Sent: 25 January 2022 10:17
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. <tp> Gosh, they are the ones that I have been reviewing, along with dhcp etc - what a coincidence:-) Tom Petch 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]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On 23/10/2021 13:33, [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
