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

-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Netconf [mailto:netconf-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Kent Watsen
发送时间: 2018年9月26日 6:19
收件人: Juergen Schoenwaelder
抄送: Netconf
主题: Re: [Netconf] mbj's WGLC review of yang-push-17

>> 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.

>I also thought that maybe there should be something better.  I had searched RFC 6991 for "duration" thinking about xsd:duration.

>> 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.";
>>  }

>>But then by that token, should we have types for seconds, minutes,
>>hours, etc. too?  This might actually be nice to have, but perhaps
>>part of a rfc6991bis instead?  

[Qin]: To address this, one solution we proposed in draft-ietf-lime-yang-connectionless-oam-18:
Is to define ietf-lime-time-types which can be reused in other modules. In ietf-lime-time-types, we define
define time-unit-type as identity. 
But maybe typedef is even better since both time-unit and value are defined in one.

>This is why I was thinking to use the "units" statement:

>         leaf period {
>            type unit32;
>            units "Hundredths of a second.";
>            mandatory true;
>            description
>              "Duration of time which should occur between periodic
>               push updates.";
>          }

_______________________________________________
Netconf mailing list
Netconf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf