Jason, Following on the example I gave on the other thread here is what I see for the admin/oper leafs.
> On Jul 17, 2017, at 12:22 PM, Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > A note in Rob Wilton’s presentation today in rtgwg mentioned something about > consistency in the value space for config vs state leafs. The NMDA approach > results in the same leaf for both config & state in many cases (at least for > the cases where the separate config & state leafs were only there to > represent intended vs applied config). > > But aren’t there some cases where the value space for state will be different > than the value space for config ? I’m thinking of the basic admin/oper state > for interfaces for example where config may allow enable/disable but state > may have additional values like ‘testing’. If the config & state value > spaces aren’t 100% the same, are module designers recommended to create a > separate state leaf ? leaf administrative-state { type boolean { description “When set to true, the interface is set to be administratively up. The actual state of the interface is reflected in the corresponding operational-state leaf.”; } } leaf operational-state { config false; type enumeration { enum up; enum down; enum testing; enum negotiating; } } > > Rgds, > Jason > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod> Mahesh Jethanandani [email protected]
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
