> > > > Does a percentage really need a single standard type in the first
> > > > place? How about "units percent;"?
> > > >
> > > > At this point, after hearing about how different modules have
> > > > differin
> > > >
> > > > Does a percentage really need a single standard type in the first
> > > > place? How about "units percent;"?
> > > >
> > > > At this point, after hearing about how different modules have
> > > > differing requirement
> > Does a percentage really need a single standard type in the first
> > > place? How about "units percent;"?
> > >
> > > At this point, after hearing about how different modules have
> > > differing requirement on this type, I tend to agree.
> > >
> > > +
rst
> > place? How about "units percent;"?
> >
> > At this point, after hearing about how different modules have
> > differing requirement on this type, I tend to agree.
> >
> > +1
> >
> > Or even "units %;"
> >
>
> From: netmod on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee)
>
> Sent: Wednesday, 14 November 2018 5:03 a.m.
> To: Juergen Schoenwaelder; Balázs Lengyel
> Cc: NETMOD WG
> Subject: Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis
>
> On 11/13/18, 9:07 AM, "netmod on behalf
day, 14 November 2018 5:03 a.m.
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder; Balázs Lengyel
Cc: NETMOD WG
Subject: Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis
On 11/13/18, 9:07 AM, "netmod on behalf o
Schoenwaelder; Balázs Lengyel
Cc: NETMOD WG
Subject: Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis
On 11/13/18, 9:07 AM, "netmod on behalf of Juergen Schoenwaelder"
wrote:
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 01:33:01PM +, Balázs Lengyel wrote:
> Hello,
>
> In
> /martin
> > >
> > >
> > > > ________
> > > > From: netmod on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee)
> > > >
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 14 November 2018 5:03 a.m.
> > > &
_
From: netmod on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Wednesday, 14 November 2018 5:03 a.m.
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder; Balázs Lengyel
Cc: NETMOD WG
Subject: Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis
On 11/13/18, 9:07 AM, "netmod on behalf of Juergen Schoenwaelder"
wr
agree.
/martin
>
>
> From: netmod on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee)
>
> Sent: Wednesday, 14 November 2018 5:03 a.m.
> To: Juergen Schoenwaelder; Balázs Lengyel
> Cc: NETMOD WG
> Subject: Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis
>
> On 11/13/18, 9:07 AM, "netmod
NETMOD WG
Subject: Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis
On 11/13/18, 9:07 AM, "netmod on behalf of Juergen Schoenwaelder"
wrote:
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 01:33:01PM +, Balázs Lengyel wrote:
> Hello,
>
> In some cases I want a percentage without fractions. This
On 11/13/18, 9:07 AM, "netmod on behalf of Juergen Schoenwaelder"
wrote:
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 01:33:01PM +, Balázs Lengyel wrote:
> Hello,
>
> In some cases I want a percentage without fractions. This could be defined
> using range, by specifying the numbers 0 |
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 01:33:01PM +, Balázs Lengyel wrote:
> Hello,
>
> In some cases I want a percentage without fractions. This could be defined
> using range, by specifying the numbers 0 | 1 | 2 ... 99 | 100 in the range's
> argument.
>
> typedef percent-short {
> type percent
Xufeng Liu; balazs.leng...@ericsson.com; NETMOD WG
主题: Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis
Well, the draft-ye-ccamp-mw-topo-yang-02 definition excludes 100%,
which is likely not generally useful. In fact, even 150% can be in
some contexts a perfectly sensible percentage. So we may need to
provide some f
On 2018-11-07 16:56, Qin Wu wrote:
> -®öö-
> Ñöº: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] ãh Per Hedeland
> Ñöô: 2018t117å 15:57
> 6öº: Juergen Schoenwaelder
> : NETMOD WG
> ;: Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis
>
> On 2018-11-07 09:34, Juergen Schoen
-邮件原件-
发件人: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Per Hedeland
发送时间: 2018年11月7日 15:57
收件人: Juergen Schoenwaelder
抄送: NETMOD WG
主题: Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis
On 2018-11-07 09:34, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 07:49:54AM +, Yemin (Amy) wr
gits.
/js
BR,
Amy
Ñöº: Juergen Schoenwaelder [j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de]
Ñöô: 2018t116å 22:16
6öº: Yemin (Amy)
: Qin Wu; Xufeng Liu; balazs.leng...@ericsson.com; NETMOD WG
;: Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis
Well, the draft-ye-ccamp-mw-topo-yang-02 definition
tand you want
4 digits.
/js
> BR,
> Amy
>
> 发件人: Juergen Schoenwaelder [j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de]
> 发送时间: 2018年11月6日 22:16
> 收件人: Yemin (Amy)
> 抄送: Qin Wu; Xufeng Liu; balazs.leng...@ericsson.com; NETMOD WG
> 主题: Re: [netmod
can chosse the range they like?
BR,
Amy
发件人: Juergen Schoenwaelder [j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de]
发送时间: 2018年11月6日 22:16
收件人: Yemin (Amy)
抄送: Qin Wu; Xufeng Liu; balazs.leng...@ericsson.com; NETMOD WG
主题: Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis
Well
om]
> 发送时间: 2018年11月6日 9:25
> 收件人: Xufeng Liu; balazs.leng...@ericsson.com
> 抄送: NETMOD WG
> 主题: Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis
>
>
> Another case would be :
>
>
> “
>
> typedef percentage {
>
> type decimal64 {
>
> fract
Wu [bill...@huawei.com]
发送时间: 2018年11月6日 9:25
收件人: Xufeng Liu; balazs.leng...@ericsson.com
抄送: NETMOD WG
主题: Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis
Another case would be :
“
typedef percentage {
type decimal64 {
fraction-digits 5;
range "0..100";
}
d
] 代表 Xufeng Liu
发送时间: 2018年11月6日 3:49
收件人: balazs.leng...@ericsson.com
抄送: NETMOD WG
主题: Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis
The draft that asked for the percentage type is:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ye-ccamp-mw-topo-yang-02
They currently define:
leaf availability {
Apparently people have different needs concerning precision...
/js
On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 03:48:44PM -0500, Xufeng Liu wrote:
> The draft that asked for the percentage type is:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ye-ccamp-mw-topo-yang-02
>
> They currently define:
>
> leaf
The draft that asked for the percentage type is:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ye-ccamp-mw-topo-yang-02
They currently define:
leaf availability {
type decimal64 {
fraction-digits 4;
range "0..99.";
}
What about a concrete pointer or proposal?
/js
On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 04:44:24PM -0400, Xufeng Liu wrote:
> Remember that some draft asked for a type of percentage value to the
> nearest hundredth. Wondering if it can be put in.
>
> Thanks,
> - Xufeng
>
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 11:39 AM tom
Remember that some draft asked for a type of percentage value to the
nearest hundredth. Wondering if it can be put in.
Thanks,
- Xufeng
On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 11:39 AM tom petch wrote:
> Original Message -
> From: "Juergen Schoenwaelder"
> To: "Kent Watsen"
> Cc:
> Sent: Tuesday,
Original Message -
From: "Juergen Schoenwaelder"
To: "Kent Watsen"
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 10:14 AM
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 12:05:17AM +, Kent Watsen wrote:
> >
> > >> In addition, it might be good to introduce [inet?] types for RFC
5322
> > >> (Internet Message
Cc: netmod
Subject: Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis
I can volunteer to do that if this helps.
发件人： Juergen Schoenwaelder
收件人： Qin Wumailto:bill...@huawei.com>>
抄送： netmodmailto:netmod@ietf.org>>
主题： Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis
时间： 2018-11-02 15:23:10
It seems someone
I can volunteer to do that if this helps.
发件人： Juergen Schoenwaelder
收件人： Qin Wumailto:bill...@huawei.com>>
抄送： netmodmailto:netmod@ietf.org>>
主题： Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis
时间： 2018-11-02 15:23:10
It seems someone should draft an ietf-geo yang module proposal.
/js
On
, latitude in DMS or decimal degree,
Further we can consider to add
Postal-code, Country-code like Location type.
-Qin
-邮件原件-
发件人: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Juergen Schoenwaelder
发送时间: 2018年10月31日 20:47
收件人: netmod@ietf.org
主题: Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis
Here is my
multiple locations).
> Location Objects typically include some sort of identifier of the
> Target.
> "
>
> -Qin
> -邮件原件-
> 发件人: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de]
> 发送时间: 2018年11月2日 15:07
> 收件人: Qin Wu
> 抄送: net
2018年11月2日 15:07
收件人: Qin Wu
抄送: netmod
主题: Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis
I searched for longitute or geo in RFC 8299 and this was not a big hit.
Concrete definitions will help. I do know about
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-nmrg-location-ipfix-07 and that has been
dragging on
priate PE
> based on location info. Acee also provided a valid use case in this e-mail
> thread.
>
> 发件人： Juergen Schoenwaelder
> 收件人： Qin Wumailto:bill...@huawei.com>>
> 抄送： netmodmailto:netmod@ietf.org>>
> 主题： Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis
> 时间： 2018-11-0
in this e-mail
thread.
发件人： Juergen Schoenwaelder
收件人： Qin Wumailto:bill...@huawei.com>>
抄送： netmodmailto:netmod@ietf.org>>
主题： Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis
时间： 2018-11-01 20:04:15
I think we need to find a way to limit the update to types that are
known (or expected) to be 'wi
; Juergen Schoenwaelder
; netmod@ietf.org
主题: Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis
Hi Qin,
We'd tried to converge on geo-coordinates in the protocols and received and
a rather wide range of opinions as to the precision and what was required. An
IETF consensus is required and no
-邮件原件-
发件人: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:a...@cisco.com]
发送时间: 2018年11月1日 22:18
收件人: Qin Wu ; Juergen Schoenwaelder
; netmod@ietf.org
主题: Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis
Hi Qin,
We'd tried to converge on geo-coordinates in the protocols and received and a
rather wide range of opinions
d@ietf.org
主题: Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis
Here is my list of possible additions. I might have lost some items on a
computer that meanwhile is not used anymore, I will have to dig a bit to see
what I can recover.
/js
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 01:26:01PM +0100
; 收件人: netmod@ietf.org
> 主题: Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis
>
> Here is my list of possible additions. I might have lost some items on a
> computer that meanwhile is not used anymore, I will have to dig a bit to see
> what I can recover.
>
> /js
>
> On Wed, O
: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis
Here is my list of possible additions. I might have lost some items on a
computer that meanwhile is not used anymore, I will have to dig a bit to see
what I can recover.
/js
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 01:26:01PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> Hi,
>
> anoth
Hello,
We do see a need for the following types:
date (in the earlier debate as I remember Martin wanted to
include timezone)
time
node-instance-identifier from netconf-acm. We found that this
is a useful type used not just in acm, so it
Hi,
another update that was discussed recently is a clarification of the
XPath context for the xpath1.0 type.
Lada
Kent Watsen writes:
> NETMOD WG,
>
> A conversation in NETCONF WG regarding the yang-push noted that it might be
> time to update RFC 6991, in particular to introduce a type for
> On Oct 30, 2018, at 03:14, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 12:05:17AM +, Kent Watsen wrote:
>>
>>
In addition, it might be good to introduce [inet?] types for RFC 5322
(Internet Message Format) including perhaps:
- email-address
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 12:05:17AM +, Kent Watsen wrote:
>
>
> >> In addition, it might be good to introduce [inet?] types for RFC 5322
> >> (Internet Message Format) including perhaps:
> >>
> >> - email-address(addr-spec, per Section 3.4.1)
> >> - named-email-address
>> In addition, it might be good to introduce [inet?] types for RFC 5322
>> (Internet Message Format) including perhaps:
>>
>> - email-address(addr-spec, per Section 3.4.1)
>> - named-email-address (name-addr, per Section 3.4)
>>
>
> Where are these used? Or have these already
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 08:34:56PM +, Kent Watsen wrote:
>
> In addition, it might be good to introduce [inet?] types for RFC 5322
> (Internet Message Format) including perhaps:
>
> - email-address(addr-spec, per Section 3.4.1)
> - named-email-address (name-addr, per Section
45 matches
Mail list logo
