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

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 10:18:50PM +0000, Kent Watsen wrote:
> 
> > 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?

Likely.
 
> 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.";
>           }

Well, the whole point of a type definition is that you do not have
to repeat things multiple times and you can be sure you always have
exactly the same.

By giving a type a good name (but good may be subjective), you also
get information into derived artefacts such as tree diagrams. Compare
these three versions:

  +---w yp:periodic!
     +---w yp:period         yang:timeticks
     +---w yp:anchor-time?   yang:date-and-time

vs

  +---w yp:periodic!
     +---w yp:period         uint32
     +---w yp:anchor-time?   yang:date-and-time

vs

  +---w yp:periodic!
     +---w yp:period         centiseconds
     +---w yp:anchor-time?   yang:date-and-time

A centiseconds type could (of course) still have a suitable units
statement. Anyway, timeticks seems to be semantically wrong.

/js

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