Hi, Typically we have a container (plural) including a list (singular). In -20 it was done the other way round. Since this is read-only, IIRC we don't need the container including a list as we do for read-write. Is the container there for convenience? Regards,Reshad.
augment /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols /rt:control-plane-protocol/isis:isis/isis:database /isis:levels/isis:lsp: +--ro sid-binding-tlvs* [] | +--ro sid-binding-tlv | +--ro prefix? inet:ip-prefix | +--ro range? uint16 | +--ro sid-binding-flags | | +--ro flags* identityref | +--ro prefix-sid-sub-tlvs* [] | | +--ro prefix-sid-sub-tlvs | | +--ro prefix-sid-sub-tlv* [sid] | | +--ro prefix-sid-flags | | | +--ro flags* identityref | | +--ro algorithm? identityref | | +--ro sid uint32 | +--ro sid-sub-tlvs* [] | | +--ro sid-sub-tlv | | +--ro length? uint8 | | +--ro sid? uint32 | +--ro unknown-tlvs | +--ro unknown-tlv* [] | +--ro type? uint16 | +--ro length? uint16 | +--ro value? yang:hex-string +--ro mt-sid-binding-tlvs* [] +--ro mt-sid-binding-tlvs +--ro prefix? inet:ip-prefix +--ro range? uint16 +--ro sid-binding-flags | +--ro flags* identityref +--ro prefix-sid-sub-tlvs* [] | +--ro prefix-sid-sub-tlvs | +--ro prefix-sid-sub-tlv* [sid] | +--ro prefix-sid-flags | | +--ro flags* identityref | +--ro algorithm? identityref | +--ro sid uint32 +--ro sid-sub-tlvs* [] | +--ro sid-sub-tlv | +--ro length? uint8 | +--ro sid? uint32 +--ro unknown-tlvs | +--ro unknown-tlv* [] | +--ro type? uint16 | +--ro length? uint16 | +--ro value? yang:hex-string +--ro mt-id? uint16 On Saturday, January 20, 2024, 06:53:52 PM EST, Reshad Rahman <res...@yahoo.com> wrote: [Yingzhen]: Thanks for catching this. I've updated the description.<Reshad> I looked at the changes in -20. That grouping is now gone and the (mt-)sid-binding-tlvs lists have no key, is that the intent?Also container mt-sid-binding-tlvs should be renamed to mt-sid-binding-tlv.
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr