Per Hedeland <p...@hedeland.org> wrote:
> 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"
Yes.
> while the NETCONF encoding of
> "operation foo" elsewhere would be an RPC called "action"?
Yes; or called something else.
/martin
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
