On 3/6/18 3:29 AM, Lou Berger wrote:
> Martin,
>
>
> On March 6, 2018 4:44:47 AM Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> After thinking some more about this, realizing that this document is
>> in AUTH48, and looking at the first sentence in the Abstract:
>>
>> This document
Juergen Schoenwaelder writes:
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 10:44:11AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>>
>> OLD:
>>
>> is one of:
>> rw for configuration data
>> ro for non-configuration data, output parameters to rpcs
>>
On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 03:45:49PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>
> I agree that using well defined terms add clarity. However, the
> proposed text is not quite right. Possibly:
>
> rw for configuration data- and choice nodes
> ro for non-configuration data- and choice
Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 02:00:23PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 10:44:11AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 02:00:23PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 10:44:11AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > >
> > > OLD:
> > >
> > > is one of:
> > > rw for configuration data
Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 10:44:11AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> >
> > OLD:
> >
> > is one of:
> > rw for configuration data
> > ro for non-configuration data, output parameters to rpcs
> >
On 3/6/2018 10:44 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Hi,
After thinking some more about this, realizing that this document is
in AUTH48, and looking at the first sentence in the Abstract:
This document captures the current syntax used in YANG module tree
diagrams.
I have reached the
On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 10:44:11AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>
> OLD:
>
> is one of:
> rw for configuration data
> ro for non-configuration data, output parameters to rpcs
> and actions, and notification parameters
> -w for input parameters
On 3/6/2018 7:10 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Lou Berger wrote:
Martin,
On March 6, 2018 4:44:47 AM Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Hi,
After thinking some more about this, realizing that this document is
in AUTH48, and looking at the first sentence in the
Lou Berger wrote:
> Martin,
>
>
> On March 6, 2018 4:44:47 AM Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > After thinking some more about this, realizing that this document is
> > in AUTH48, and looking at the first sentence in the Abstract:
> >
> >This
Martin,
On March 6, 2018 4:44:47 AM Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Hi,
After thinking some more about this, realizing that this document is
in AUTH48, and looking at the first sentence in the Abstract:
This document captures the current syntax used in YANG module tree
+1 for this solution.
Thanks,
Rob
On 06/03/2018 09:44, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Hi,
After thinking some more about this, realizing that this document is
in AUTH48, and looking at the first sentence in the Abstract:
This document captures the current syntax used in YANG module tree
Mahesh Jethanandani wrote:
>
>
> > On Mar 5, 2018, at 6:27 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> >
> > Martin Bjorklund > wrote:
> >> Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> >>> On Mon,
Hi,
After thinking some more about this, realizing that this document is
in AUTH48, and looking at the first sentence in the Abstract:
This document captures the current syntax used in YANG module tree
diagrams.
I have reached the conclusion that we probably shouldn't make any
drastic
On 03/05/2018 06:40 PM, Per Hedeland wrote:
On 2018-03-05 16:06, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
On Mon, 2018-03-05 at 15:49 +0100, Per Hedeland wrote:
On 2018-03-05 15:41, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
On Mon, 2018-03-05 at 15:26 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Juergen Schoenwaelder
> On Mar 5, 2018, at 6:27 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>
> Martin Bjorklund > wrote:
>> Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 02:54:18PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>
On 2018-03-05 16:06, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-03-05 at 15:49 +0100, Per Hedeland wrote:
>> On 2018-03-05 15:41, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2018-03-05 at 15:26 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Mon,
On Mon, 2018-03-05 at 15:49 +0100, Per Hedeland wrote:
> On 2018-03-05 15:41, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > On Mon, 2018-03-05 at 15:26 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > > Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 02:54:18PM +0100, Martin
On 2018-03-05 15:41, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-03-05 at 15:26 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>> Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 02:54:18PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>
> So it seems the running code got it
On Mon, 2018-03-05 at 15:26 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 02:54:18PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > > >
> > > > So it seems the running code got it right. ;-)
> > >
> > > As the author of that
Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 02:54:18PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > >
> > > So it seems the running code got it right. ;-)
> >
> > As the author of that code, I think that was purely by accident...
> >
> > But I'm not
On 03/05/2018 02:54 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 02:14:26PM +0100, Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
On 03/05/2018 01:50 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
I prefer that the choice/case nodes do not have any
On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 02:54:18PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> >
> > So it seems the running code got it right. ;-)
>
> As the author of that code, I think that was purely by accident...
>
> But I'm not convinced it is the correct solution. We have one example
> in the other thread where
Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 02:14:26PM +0100, Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
> > On 03/05/2018 01:50 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> >
> > > I prefer that the choice/case nodes do not have any flags since they
> > > are not having a
On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 02:14:26PM +0100, Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
> On 03/05/2018 01:50 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
>
> > I prefer that the choice/case nodes do not have any flags since they
> > are not having a config true/false property on their own. And less
> > clutter is better.
>
>
On 03/05/2018 01:50 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
I prefer that the choice/case nodes do not have any flags since they
are not having a config true/false property on their own. And less
clutter is better.
'choice' statements have 'config' substatement while 'case' do not. I
myself figured
I prefer that the choice/case nodes do not have any flags since they
are not having a config true/false property on their own. And less
clutter is better.
/js
On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 12:26:27PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Lifting this issue to its own thread.
>
> With this
Hi,
Lifting this issue to its own thread.
With this snippet:
choice subnet {
case prefix-length {
leaf prefix-length {
type uint8;
}
}
case netmask {
leaf netmask {
type yang:dotted-quad;
}
}
}
pyang prints
28 matches
Mail list logo