Dear authors,
I have been thinking some more about this (and also I read the YANG data
model, which helped me), so replying one of my point. Hopefully,
answering it
- in the IM YANG model, I am surprised that you had to define those identities
identity address-family {
description
"Defines a type for the address family.";
}
identity ipv4 {
base address-family;
description
"Identity for an IPv4 address family.";
}
identity ipv6 {
base address-family;
description
"Identity for an IPv6 address family.";
}
identity all {
base address-family;
description
"Identity for all address families.";
}
I would have been expecting that it was defined already in an existing IETF
YANG modules.
The YANG doctors will tell.
New identities or reused identities, I guess it doesn't matter too much
for the YANG _information _model, right?
The point being to be able to understand the concepts. And this is the
reason why you only imported ietf-yang-types and
ietf-yang-structure-ext, which were absolutely required for the YANG
definitions.
Is my understanding correct?
Regards, Benoit
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
