Re: [netmod] Question on range for parent-rel-pos in ietf-hatrdware.yang versus RFC 6933 entPhysicalParentRelPos

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Thu, 08 February 2018 08:23 UTC

Return-Path: <mbj@tail-f.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 195A212422F for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 00:23:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 jDXjVz6VWCjh for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 00:23:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8730512D879 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 00:23:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [173.38.220.45]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B0EB91AE046C; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 09:23:54 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 09:23:54 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <20180208.092354.1733219897860431005.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: bart.bogaert@nokia.com
Cc: netmod@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <VI1PR07MB172523110F57300A070A102F94F30@VI1PR07MB1725.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <VI1PR07MB172523110F57300A070A102F94F30@VI1PR07MB1725.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 24.5 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/se0WsJO4BPp9zhZmgzSeJ3IIKOU>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Question on range for parent-rel-pos in ietf-hatrdware.yang versus RFC 6933 entPhysicalParentRelPos
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 08 Feb 2018 08:23:57 -0000

"Bogaert, Bart (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <bart.bogaert@nokia.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> During implementation we came across the following anomaly:
> 
> According to RFC 6933 entPhysicalParentRelPos the value should be
> set to -1 in case there is no parent.
> The hardware YANG model defines this leaf as int32 with range "0
> .. 2147483647",  To be in-line with the referred RFC, shouldn't the
> range be extended as "-1 .. 2147483647"?

In MIBs, people often use special values to indicate that the
underlying thing doesn't exist.  In YANG we try to avoid this, and
instead not instantiate the node.  This should probably have been
clarified in the YANG module.


/martin