Re: [Netconf] mbj's WGLC review of yang-push-17

On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 2:01 AM tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com> wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kent Watsen" <kwatsen@juniper.net>
> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 7:15 PM
>
> > >Alexander Clemm <alexander.clemm@huawei.com> wrote:
> > >> I am about to post -19 but I do not like the suggested change to go
> > >> from timeticks to seconds.
> > >>
> > >> Seconds is a fairly coarse unit.  I would not be surprised to see
> > >> requirements for finer granularity in the future, even more so in
> > >> virtualization and controller scenarios in which we start to see
> YANG
> > >> being used.  There are applications that use single second periods
> > >> today so I think it is entirely conceivable to see need for
> subsecond
> > >> support down the line.  To allow periods only in units of seconds
> > >> would seem to unnecessarily hobble ourselves.  Keeping things to
> > >> timeticks is more futureproof IMHO.
> > >
> > > Ok.
> >
> > I agree that seconds is too course. Hundredths of a second is maybe
> too
> > fine, but I won't complain.  That said, I think that it might be an
> > uncommon scenario and that having hundredths of a second will likely
> > result in very large numbers.
> >
> > FWIW, yang:timeticks doesn't seem as intuitive as "units" - for
> example:
>
> Kent
>
> It may depend where you come from.  As RFC6991 points out, timeticks is
> designed to be compatible with SMI TimeTicks and so will likely to be
> familiar,  expected even, for those who have been at this for, say, 10
> years or more.
>
>

Or even 30 years!
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1065

I do not understand the motivation for using uint16.
This would limit the maximum period to 655.35 seconds.

> Tom Petch
>

Andy

>
> >           leaf period {
> > -           type yang:timeticks;
> > +           type uint16;
> > +           units "Hundredths of a second";
> >             mandatory true;
> >             description
> >               "Duration of time which should occur between periodic
> >                push updates.";
> >           }
> >
> > At least I know what this means right away.  I was hoping to find an
> example
> > in -19 illustrating its use, but it's none is present.
> >
> > BTW, I note that RFC 6991 says:
> >
> >          When a schema
> >          node is defined that uses this type, the description of
> >          the schema node identifies both of the reference epochs.
> >
> > Which I don't see in -19.
> >
> > Would it make sense to use a 2-tuple?  Something like:
> >
> >           leaf period {
> >             type uint16;
> >             mandatory true;
> >             description
> >               "Duration of time which should occur between periodic
> >                push updates.";
> >           }
> >           leaf period-units {
> >             type enumeration {
> >               enum hundredths;
> >               enum tenths;
> >               enum seconds;
> >               enum minutes;
> >               enum hours;
> >             }
> >             mandatory true;
> >           }
> >
> >
> >
> > Kent // contributor
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Netconf mailing list
> > Netconf@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> Netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>