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

[Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>]

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

That was a typo - it should've been uint32.  FWIW, when I added the
"anchor-time" to the [netcont/restconf]-client-server drafts, I used "period"
with "type uint16" and "units minutes", which is where uint16 came from.

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

But it was just a suggestion.

I agree with the comment that software can easily convert hundredths of a
second values to things like "minutes" or "hours", but how would it know
when to do so?   Even if the UI was clever enough to enable an admin to
enter the value using two fields (value + units) and the software internally
converted to hundredths of a second, it doesn't help later when another UI
wants to looks at the value, unless we expect it to step through a bunch of
commonly-used units until finding one that fits nicely.

FWIW, we had a similar discussion a long time back with the netconf-server
draft but, at that time, the minimum designed granularity was "seconds",
which seemed okay since most people are pretty familiar with how seconds
convert to minutes or hours or days.

Kent // contributor