Isnt it possible to handle case b) by defining a value to have the meaning
no value has been assigned and then the user an explicitly set that value?
Adrian
From: netmod On Behalf Of Oscar González de Dios
Sent: 11 February 2020 02:40
To: opsawg@ietf.org; net...@ietf.org
Subject: [netmo
Hi,
Oscar González de Dios wrote:
> Dear OPSAWG and Netmod colleagues,
>
> During last IETF Opsawg meeting we raised a question (and
> there was some discussion during the meeting) that we have
> found yet no good answer and we would like to discus
-Mensaje original-
De: Martin Bjorklund
Enviado el: martes, 11 de febrero de 2020 11:00
Para: Oscar González de Dios
CC: opsawg@ietf.org; net...@ietf.org
Asunto: Re: [netmod] Question on how to design a Yang model to reflect
auto-asignment of a give leaf
Hi,
Oscar González de Dios
Hi Adrian,
The problem is that, as the leaf has a type, It would require
to say which value of that type means "No value assigned". An alternative could
be a choice of "No value is assigned" (an empty type leaf?) or the leaf with
the type itself. Does this makes sense?
Oscar González de Dios wrote:
>
>
> -Mensaje original-
> De: Martin Bjorklund
> Enviado el: martes, 11 de febrero de 2020 11:00
> Para: Oscar González de Dios
> CC: opsawg@ietf.org; net...@ietf.org
> Asunto: Re: [netmod] Question on how to design a Yang model to reflect
> auto-asignmen
Agree that ideally we avoid (a) in running. Unfortunately I think we used (a)
in ietf-interfaces though:
leaf type {
type identityref {
base interface-type;
}
mandatory true;
description
"The type of the interface.
