Re: [netmod] [Anima] revising RFC8366 -- Re: BRSKI-AE enum issue -> empty, but what's he encoding ?

["Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Michael,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anima <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
> Sent: 25 June 2021 21:41
> To: Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>; Fries, Steffen
> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Kent
> Watsen <[e-mail]>; Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>
> Subject: [Anima] revising RFC8366 -- Re: BRSKI-AE enum issue -> empty, but
> what's he encoding ?
> 
> 
> Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]> wrote:
>     tte> https://trac.ietf.org/trac/netmod/wiki/YANG_FAQ#when-use-empty
>     tte> Is this the solution we are looking for ?
> 
> 
> here it the relevant text:
> 
> } The second situation is when you want to define an extensible
> enumeration,
> } as an alternative to the type "enumeration", which is not extensible by
> other
> } modules. For example if an enumeration is used:
> 
> } leaf protocol {
> }   type enumeration {
> }     enum smtp;
> }     enum pop3;
> }   }
> } }
> } and we want to add a new protocol 'imap4', it must be done by adding a
> new
> } enum in the module. But if we use a choice of type empty instead:
> 
> } container protocol {
> }   choice p {
> }     case smtp { leaf smtp { type empty; } }
> }     case pop3 { leaf pop3 { type empty; } }
> }   }
> } }
> } then another module can augment the first:
> }
> } augment /foo:protocol/p {
> }    case imap4 { leaf imap4 { type empty; } }
> } }
> 
> Well, this seems to be exactly what we want.
> Do we get to put a description in there?
> can we put a value in so that our SID process works?
> (I imagine we'll have to hack pyang to make it cope, but...)
> 
> proceedural options:
> 
> 1) write this up as errata against 8366.  That seems a bit much for errata,
>    but how much whisky does it cost to bribe an AD?

Depends how expensive the whisky is ;-)

More seriously though, this can't be done as an errata.

An RFC8366bis is the right option.  If the changes are minor then I may be able to ease the passage through the IESG, but I can't do much to affect the elapsed time.

Regards,
Rob


> 
> 2) write a formal "Updates" RFC8366 that just does the NEW/OLD version of
>    updates, and that's it.
> 
> 3) do an entire RFC8366bis.
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>            Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
> 
> 
>