Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis

Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com> Thu, 29 November 2018 11:03 UTC

Return-Path: <rwilton@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A4271292F1 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 03:03:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.96
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.96 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-1.459, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jFP8Vl_S7Pze for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 03:03:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2495F128C65 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 03:03:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3157; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1543489428; x=1544699028; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=m+8ZRpFD4S8MmwfgskjU2Y+iYSx5LU5FbAGVQZTQ/RA=; b=NXtMxa9feQ0dyVfq7evEHuIOkCbQOf50zYDyj8aRbI0kdGI/vpKU9DE6 yQiK2hJft3rPi7lamdgLIPeJtpIASkTNElW+SQtge2LBIoaOt6/V2XSOl GYPQRR99KoYgsulDgYgKSKWlx6Q3hNHZY6djfqoBT/Cvr+CvVGhzVKgP5 E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0ADAAAOx/9b/xbLJq1iAxkBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQEHAQEBAQEBgVEEAQEBAQELAYJpTzMng3mIGF+NCQgll0KBeg0YC4Q?= =?us-ascii?q?DRgKDUzQJDQEDAQECAQECbRwMhTwBAQEBAwEBIQ8BBTYZAgsQAQQBAQECAiY?= =?us-ascii?q?CAhsMKAgGAQwGAgEBgx0BggEPph+BL4VAhGgFBYEGiyKBQD+BEScMgl+DHgE?= =?us-ascii?q?BggImgj2CVwKgIwmRLAYYiWiHNIh4iHCGZIFGOIFVMxoIGxU7gmyGO4RhhT8?= =?us-ascii?q?/AzCOPwEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,294,1539648000"; d="scan'208";a="8464094"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 29 Nov 2018 11:03:45 +0000
Received: from [10.63.23.68] (dhcp-ensft1-uk-vla370-10-63-23-68.cisco.com [10.63.23.68]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id wATB3joW015789; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 11:03:45 GMT
To: "j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de" <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, netmod@ietf.org
References: <20181113140709.vwc4f3mqmmgjaluu@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <091DC7F4-0C17-4E64-85B8-8963EFBC208B@cisco.com> <1542152721437.91451@Aviatnet.com> <20181114.091024.1454093230497622054.mbj@tail-f.com> <dae0f227c663bdfa105e992c1ae088c22fa545bb.camel@nic.cz>
From: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <b45e6850-6943-073b-98a9-8aeab20b3d76@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 11:03:45 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <dae0f227c663bdfa105e992c1ae088c22fa545bb.camel@nic.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.63.23.68, dhcp-ensft1-uk-vla370-10-63-23-68.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-2.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/TfNiu9evlG7pKIzIOZ4nZiEvPFc>
Subject: Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 11:03:50 -0000

Hi Juergen,

YANG library currently defines the type "revision-identifer".  Is this a 
typedef that should logically migrate to rfc6991bis?

Thanks,
Rob

On 14/11/2018 08:16, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-11-14 at 09:10 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Alex Campbell <Alex.Campbell@Aviatnet.com> wrote:
>>> Does a percentage really need a single standard type in the first
>>> place? How about "units percent;"?
>> At this point, after hearing about how different modules have
>> differing requirement on this type, I tend to agree.
> +1
>
> Or even "units %;"
>
> Lada
>
>>
>> /martin
>>
>>
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: netmod <netmod-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee)
>>> <acee@cisco.com>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, 14 November 2018 5:03 a.m.
>>> To: Juergen Schoenwaelder; Balázs Lengyel
>>> Cc: NETMOD WG
>>> Subject: Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis
>>>
>>> On 11/13/18, 9:07 AM, "netmod on behalf of Juergen Schoenwaelder"
>>> <netmod-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of
>>> j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>      On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 01:33:01PM +0000, Balázs Lengyel wrote:
>>>      > Hello,
>>>      >
>>>      > In some cases I want a percentage without fractions. This could be
>>>      > defined
>>>      > using range, by specifying the numbers 0 | 1 | 2 ... 99 | 100 in the
>>>      > range's
>>>      > argument.
>>>      >
>>>      >     typedef percent-short {
>>>      >       type percent { range 0 | 1 | 2 ... 99 | 100; } // didn't type
>>> out
>>>      >       all the 101 integer values :-)
>>>      >     }
>>>      >
>>>
>>>      I guess we need to settle on a small number of percentage types that
>>>      people find useful and then module authors hopefully find what they
>>>      need. I am not sure that listing 101 numbers is a good pattern to use
>>>      (although it does achieve what you want). For percentages that have no
>>>      fraction, you likely want to derive from a base type that is efficient
>>>      to encode for binary encodings such as CBOR.
>>>
>>> Or simply define a type with a base type of unit8 type and a range of
>>> 0-100.
>>>
>>> Acee
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      /js
>>>
>>>      --
>>>      Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
>>>      Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
>>>      Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>>>
>>>      _______________________________________________
>>>      netmod mailing list
>>>      netmod@ietf.org
>>>      https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> netmod mailing list
>>> netmod@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> netmod mailing list
>>> netmod@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>> _______________________________________________
>> netmod mailing list
>> netmod@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod