On 2020-05-05 11:55, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 11:45:41AM +0200, Per Hedeland wrote:
>> On 2020-05-05 11:00, Martin Björklund wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> If we were to redo YANG, I would prefer to have a single statement
>>> "operation", either on the top-level, or tied to a node.
>>
>> So, no rpc statement, and thereby no possibility to extend NETCONF
>> with new RPCs? (Or to be precise, YANG would extend NETCONF with
>> exactly one RPC, called "operation"?)
>>
>
> OLD
>
> rpc foo {}
> list something { action bar {} }
>
> NEW
>
> operation foo {}
> list something { operation bar {} }
Yes, that much is obvious, my question was really about the NETCONF
encoding.
> Syntactic sugar if you will.
So you're saying that the NETCONF encoding of "operation foo" at the
top level would be an RPC called "foo", while the NETCONF encoding of
"operation foo" elsewhere would be an RPC called "action"?
--Per
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
