Hi Jeff, Thanks for looking at this. You are right, but we are still discussing various approaches for the static MPLS and the conclusion has not been reached yet. We'd like to hear what you think and appreciate your comments.
Best, - Xufeng > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeffrey Haas [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 4:21 PM > To: Xufeng Liu <[email protected]> > Cc: Greg Mirsky <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: MPLS label and LSE data models > > Xufeng, > > I see that draft-ietf-mpls-static-yang-04 was issued. My comment is against > that > version now. > > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 03:44:28PM +0000, Xufeng Liu wrote: > > > I'm not conversant with common Yang tool suites, but it seems if the > > > ordered-by user rather than the default of system, then the tooling > > > might present the bottom of stack entry as the first or last node of > > > the list rather than requiring the consumer to have to run a sort of > > > the nodes based on the id number and then select the first node. > > > > [Xufeng] Are you suggesting to use the position to order instead of > > the ID value? If so, what would be the semantics of the ID value? If > > we cannot get rid of the ID key, I don't know if using a separate > > ordering mechanism will make the usability better. > > I see that you changed things to use a constrained index range with id 0 being > special for top of stack. > > So, if you have labels with indexes 0, 5, 10, 15, then 15 would be the bottom > of > stack? > > -- Jeff _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
