Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-lange-netmod-iana-timezones-00.txt

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 03:58:15PM +0100,
> [e-mail] wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder
> > [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > Sent: 28 June 2012 14:12
> > > To: Lange, Jeffrey K (GE Energy); Martin Bjorklund; [e-mail]
> > > Subject: Re: [netmod] I-D Action:
> > draft-lange-netmod-iana-timezones-00.txt
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 03:02:30PM +0200, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > >
> > > > > So that also is a bit arbitrary as well.  Should I leave the enums
> > in
> > > alphabetical order? Or should it match what the zone.tab file does?
> > > >
> > > > Any order is likely irrelevant over time. See below.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Well, I realize this statement is not really helpful / correct. You
> > > can keept the enums defined in the order they are defined in the TZ
> > > database but then the value statements MUST be used and the numbers
> > > over time won't be assigned in a strictly increasing order. This means
> > > that YANG tools can use the definition order (if they are able to
> > > access it) or they might end up using the numeric value order, which
> > > will over time be increasingly meaningless.
> >
> > Still learning here, but RFC6087 states:
> >
> > If extensibility of enumerated values is required, then the
> > 'identityref' data type SHOULD be used instead of an enumeration or
> > other built-in type.
> >
> > So why are enums being considered over identityrefs?
>
> Because that was proposed on the list. ;-)
>


Wonder who proposed it?  :-)

I can't change ietf-system.yang to import this typedef until
the document is accepted as a WG document, so the new
version about to be published will not use it yet --
unless the WG can adopt this document via the mailing list.

I haven't seen any objections, and all issues have been addressed
(within scope of this WG).



> /js
>

Andy