On 04/04/2022 13:48, Jernej Tuljak wrote:
> If both "leaf" data nodes are instantiated (XML encoding) as
part of for "foo", does come before or after (in
document order)?
Augmented-in nodes come after other nodes.
Maybe this is an implementation convention, but the RFC say
In the MIB, the base types don't include the zone -
https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4001.txt
It was very unfortunate that the YANG IP addresses included the zone in the
base types.
Tom - I think it would be hard to find an author where including the zone was a
conscious decision.
Thanks,
Acee
From: Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: 04 April 2022 15:58
Hi Tom, +Juergen, netmod WG,
I think the question you ought to be asking is whether the base IPv4 and IPv6
address types should be modified to NOT include the zone and the zone versions
should be added as a separate YANG type.
The RFC 6991 is
On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 4:48 AM Jernej Tuljak
wrote:
> On 01/04/2022 15:49, Andy Bierman wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 4:24 AM Kent Watsen wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Jernej,
>>
>> > RFC7950, 7.14.4. says:
>> >
>> >Input parameters are encoded as child XML elements to the rpc node's
>> >XML
Hi Tom, +Juergen, netmod WG,
I think the question you ought to be asking is whether the base IPv4 and IPv6
address types should be modified to NOT include the zone and the zone versions
should be added as a separate YANG type.
The RFC 6991 is under revision now:
https://datatracker.ietf.org
On 01/04/2022 15:49, Andy Bierman wrote:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 4:24 AM Kent Watsen wrote:
Hi Jernej,
> RFC7950, 7.14.4. says:
>
> Input parameters are encoded as child XML elements to the rpc
node's
> XML element, in the same order as they are defined within t
