Thanks Martin, this makes sense.
Regards, Bart
-Original Message-
From: Martin Bjorklund [mailto:m...@tail-f.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 9:24 AM
To: Bogaert, Bart (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)
Cc: netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] Question on range for parent-rel-pos in
ietf-hatrdware.yang versus RFC 6933 entPhysicalParentRelPos
"Bogaert, Bart (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> During implementation we came across the following anomaly:
>
> According to RFC 6933 entPhysicalParentRelPos the value should be set
> to -1 in case there is no parent.
> The hardware YANG model defines this leaf as int32 with range "0 ..
> 2147483647", To be in-line with the referred RFC, shouldn't the range
> be extended as "-1 .. 2147483647"?
In MIBs, people often use special values to indicate that the underlying thing
doesn't exist. In YANG we try to avoid this, and instead not instantiate the
node. This should probably have been clarified in the YANG module.
/martin
___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
