On 1/22/16 7:14 AM, Ebben Aries wrote: > On 01/11/2016 11:30 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: >>>>>> In the XML shown, can you not >>>>>>>>>> leave out all the fields that are not set? This would remove a lot >>>>>>>>>> of noise. I do not understand what having both actions deny and >>>>>>>>>> permit at the same time means. Did you validate the example against >>>>>>>>>> the data model? (I also find the keys at the end somewhat strange >>>>>>>>>> and not that NETCONF XML serialization actually requires the keys to >>>>>>>>>> be sent first.) >>>>>>>> We used pyang sample xml skeleton to create the xml example. >>>>>> Whatever, the noise does not really help and the example might even >>>>>> mislead people to believe they have to write down all unused leafs. >>>> We could edit the empty fields out, but from personal experience working >>>> with customers, I was getting questions that the compiler output and the >>>> examples are not matching (it was vendor data modeling language). >> Which compiler's output? I find it very distracting to list unused >> leafs. I assume most NETCONF implementations suppress unused leafs as >> well. (I might be proven wrong but I would have a preference to not >> use one that sends me tons of useless empty leafs.) >> > I agree, the goal of this XML example is to match an RPC with the CLI > example above it. No reason to include all possible leafs.
+1. > > Another state of confusion is an acl-type of 'ipv4-acl' with references > to both ace-ipv6 and ace-ipv6 leafs > > Yes, not to mention both <permit /> and <deny /> in the same ACE. Eliot
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
