Hi, Jason
Apologies for replying so late, there are a lot to chew on;-) And many thanks
for the detailed comments, all good points.
I try to respond here and also welcome others to join the discussion if there
are any other different points of view.
Please see my reply inline.
From: netmod
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories. This Internet-Draft is a work item of the Network Modeling
(NETMOD) WG of the IETF.
Title : Updated YANG Module Revision Handling
Authors : Robert Wilton
Reshad Rahman
However, the use case is covered by two points:
1. Don't emit the "unknown" node when you know everything.
2. Encodings that make you "hunt for the bit" are a PITA. If bit-31 is the
only new one in a 32-bit vector, you have to know that's the thing to look for
if it's in any format other than
That could be one approach, but note that the final step (your last sentence)
would still be NBC.
From: Rob Wilton (rwilton)
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2023 9:36 AM
To: Jason Sterne (Nokia) ; Italo Busi
; Jeffrey Haas
Cc: netmod@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [netmod] Unknown bits - backwards
Hi Jason,
Yes, I was thinking that you would always return the raw value and the bits
encoded value, but perhaps a server could optionally elide the raw value when
it knows that it can be fully represented by the bits value.
Regards,
Rob
From: Jason Sterne (Nokia)
Sent: 17 April 2023 14:05
Rob & Italo - are you proposing that the "raw-bits" are all always returned
(whether they are known or not)?
Jason
From: netmod On Behalf Of Rob Wilton (rwilton)
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2023 7:43 AM
To: Italo Busi ; Jeffrey Haas
Cc: netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] Unknown bits -
In the current proposal/draft, when bit-1 changes to "known", then suddenly the
server stops sending bit-1 in the unknown-bits.
That behavior changes whether the author remembers (or decides) to update the
description of the unknown-flags or not.
I've suggested that the description of the
Italo's suggest was also how I was thinking of this.
We could define a convention for how the "raw" leaf should be named relative to
the bits decoded leaf, and also what type the "raw" leaf should use. E.g., in
the case where the length of the bits field is known (e.g., it is
Hi, Jan
Thank you so much for the follow-up, please see my reply inline.
From: Jan Lindblad (jlindbla) [mailto:jlindbla=40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 10:05 PM
To: maqiufang (A) mailto:maqiufa...@huawei.com>>
Cc: Kent Watsen mailto:kent+i...@watsen.net>>; Rob Wilton
Hi,
"Jason Sterne (Nokia)" wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> If a "description" of a leaf (without a default statement) changes from this:
>
> "the absence of this leaf causes the protocol to stay administratively
> down"
>
> to this:
>
> "the absence of this leaf causes the protocol to
10 matches
Mail list logo
