> -----Original Message-----
> From: netmod <netmod-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Martin Björklund
> Sent: 05 May 2020 11:30
> To: p...@hedeland.org
> Cc: netmod@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [netmod] YANG action not allowed at root?
>
> 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.
[RW]
What is your reasoning for not wanting to unify the encoding?
E.g. always treat the encoding like action, but with the <action> node removed.
Regards,
Rob
[As an individual contributor]
>
>
> /martin
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
