Hi Reshad,
Thanks for the review.
The "sid-binding-tlv" and "mt-sid-binding-tlv" are relatively big with more
content, so I thought it might be easier to read with a container. But
you're right, it's not following the YANG traditions, how about the
following?
container sid-binding-tlvs {
list sid-binding-tlv {
key "prefix";
uses sid-binding-tlv;
description
"Sid/label binding TLV, type 149.";
}
description
"List of sid/label binding TLVs.";
}
container mt-sid-binding-tlvs {
list mt-sid-binding-tlv {
key "prefix mt-id";
uses sid-binding-tlv;
leaf mt-id {
type uint16;
description
"A 12-bit field containing the non-zero ID
of the topology.";
}
description
"Multi-Topology SID/Label binding TLV, type 150.";
reference
"RFC 8667 - IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing,
Section 2.5";
}
description
"List of multi-topology sid/label binding TLVs.";
}
Thanks,
Yingzhen
On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 6:07 AM Reshad Rahman <res...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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
