RFC 8349 uses an unbounded string for control-plane-protocol so this definition
would be consistent. However, we've been putting bounds on strings that are
encoded in packets and this is probably something we should do for all strings.
container control-plane-protocols {
description
What is the recommended way of identifying an instance of the routing protocol
I S I S within a node?
draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang proposes (Appendix B.5) an
unrestricted string, ie almost any Unicode character up to a length of
18446744073709551615 characters long (my favourite
From: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Sent: 09 December 2022 00:30
Tom -
I don’t want to prolong this thread beyond reason. But I would like to make a
few points.
I generally find your diligence and attention to detail admirable and usually
concur with your recommendations. But in this case, I still
