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

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 05:52:25PM +0000, Kent Watsen wrote:
> 
> I still think replacing "type yang:timeticks" with "type unit32" and "units
> hundredths of a sec" is more intuitive, as:
>   - no need to look up what a timetick is.
>   - no need to understand why the two "epoch" times aren't documented
>     in YP, as required(?) by RFC 6991.
>   - more closely aligns with the [netcont/restconf]-client-server drafts

It seems the type you want for the 'period' leafs in your ID is not
timeticks but an equivalent of RFC 2579's TimeInterval:

TimeInterval ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
    STATUS       current
    DESCRIPTION
            "A period of time, measured in units of 0.01 seconds."
    SYNTAX       INTEGER (0..2147483647)

I am somewhat surprised we do not have something matching the
TimeInterval TC in RFC 6991, I do not recall why.

The TimeTicks TC (and hence the timeticks YANG type) represents time
that ticks. The classic example is sysUpTime - sysUpTime has a new
value whenever you read it since it constantly ticks. Hence, the
timeticks type is pretty useless for configuration objects.

If you roll your own type, perhaps you want a type like this:

  type centiseconds {
    type uint32;
    description
      "A period of time, measured in units of 0.01 seconds.";
  }

With this, you would get something more descriptive:

          leaf period {
            type centiseconds;
            mandatory true;
            description
              "Duration of time which should occur between periodic
               push updates.";
          }

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>