Martin Bjorklund writes:
> Aha, ok. This description is not a correct description of the YANG
> data tree (in which XPath expressions etc are evaluated). There is
> not a single "list node" called "interfaces". Look at an example of
^ I'm pretty sure you mean "
wor...@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) wrote:
> Martin Bjorklund writes:
> > Hmm, "*" was choosen b/c people are used to read it as
> > "zero or more". So for example:
> >
> > +---c server* [name]
> > +--c name string
> > ...
> >
> > means zero or more "server" elemen
Phil Shafer writes:
>Juergen Schoenwaelder writes:
>> is one of:
Apologies. My brain's still in "low".
Thanks,
Phil
___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
Martin Bjorklund writes:
> Hmm, "*" was choosen b/c people are used to read it as
> "zero or more". So for example:
>
> +---c server* [name]
> +--c name string
> ...
>
> means zero or more "server" elements. Each indexed by "name".
>From RFC 7223:
module ietf
Juergen Schoenwaelder writes:
> is one of:
>rw for configuration data
>ro for non-configuration data
Given that these are really "config true" and "config false" and
that ephemeral data may well be writable and "config false", should
we change the names? Writable read-only data would
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 04:55:18PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
> >
> > Single character flags work for me as well. Since I have modules with
> > pretty complex RPC inputs (more than a single page in RFC formatting),
> > I think it is useful to be able to see that one is still starting at
> >
> On 21 Mar 2017, at 15:11, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 01:01:58PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>
>>> On 21 Mar 2017, at 12:50, Robert Wilton wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> So I am suggesting perhaps just having:
>>>
>>> is one of:
>>> c for configuration data
>>>
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 01:01:58PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
> > On 21 Mar 2017, at 12:50, Robert Wilton wrote:
> >
> >
> > So I am suggesting perhaps just having:
> >
> > is one of:
> > c for configuration data
> > x for rpcs and actions
> > n for notifications
> >
> > module
wor...@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) wrote:
> One thing that threw me the first time I saw it is marking lists with
> "*". That doesn't match the generic use of "*", which is to mark the
> thing that is repeated.
Hmm, "*" was choosen b/c people are used to read it as
"zero or more". So for exampl
Ladislav Lhotka writes:
> I think the "x" and "n" is only needed next to the name of
> rpc/action/notification. So my version would be:
>
> is one of:
> c for configuration data
> x for rpcs and actions
> n for notifications
>
> module: tree-sample
> +--c config-true-container
> |
> On 21 Mar 2017, at 12:50, Robert Wilton wrote:
>
>
>
> On 21/03/2017 10:49, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>> On 21 Mar 2017, at 11:25, Juergen Schoenwaelder
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> if we want to standardize tree diagrams, we may want to take a more
>>> critical look at them, in particul
On 21/03/2017 10:49, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
On 21 Mar 2017, at 11:25, Juergen Schoenwaelder
wrote:
Hi,
if we want to standardize tree diagrams, we may want to take a more
critical look at them, in particular the flags (that were created
ad-hoc and in resemblance to MIB tree diagrams). pyang
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 11:36:29AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > I think a better usage of two letter flags would have been this (since
> > it more naturally aligns with what the YANG definition says):
> >
> >is one of:
> > ct for configuration data
> > cf for non-configuration
> On 21 Mar 2017, at 11:25, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> if we want to standardize tree diagrams, we may want to take a more
> critical look at them, in particular the flags (that were created
> ad-hoc and in resemblance to MIB tree diagrams). pyang --tree-help
> says:
>
> is
Hi Juergen,
(Just glancing through the list, and by chance reading this particular
email)
Juergen Schoenwaelder :
cf for non-configuration data
I think using "cf" to mean "non-configuration" is likely to end up being
misleading, because "cf" is in other contexts sometimes used as a
Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> Hi,
>
> if we want to standardize tree diagrams, we may want to take a more
> critical look at them, in particular the flags (that were created
> ad-hoc and in resemblance to MIB tree diagrams). pyang --tree-help
> says:
>
>is one of:
> rw for configuratio
Hi,
if we want to standardize tree diagrams, we may want to take a more
critical look at them, in particular the flags (that were created
ad-hoc and in resemblance to MIB tree diagrams). pyang --tree-help
says:
is one of:
rw for configuration data
ro for non-configuration data
-x
17 matches
Mail list logo
