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

[Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>]

> 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?  

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.";
          }