Acee,
> On Oct 5, 2022, at 10:18 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com> wrote: > > It may even be a matter of having a few useful typedefs: > > yang-key32 (length 1..32) > yang-key64 (length 1..64) > yang-key128 (length 1..128) > yang-key256 (length 1..256) > > I agree in principle. Why wouldn’t these be string32, etc, since the leaves > in question are of type string. We don’t need “yang-“ since they will be > prefixed with “yang-types:” or some other module. I'm supremely uninterested in the color of the bike shed. :-) I find minor value is having the word "key" present to cover the use case, but certainly could see use cases where a leaf might also want to limit the content size to some well known sizes. While I certainly could be the one that authors the underlying draft, there are many who are more deeply involved in daily YANG work that are probably more appropriate parties. Mostly, I'm hoping this discussion gets someone interested enough to write the trivial draft and hopefully start socializing it in IETF YANG draft reviews. -- Jeff
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
