Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis
Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Fri, 30 November 2018 10:25 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 289B4130DD5 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 02:25:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 WWdUerDsESg7 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 02:25:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E96F612D84D for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 02:25:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (h-39-108.A165.priv.bahnhof.se [213.136.39.108]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7286D1AE0386; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 11:25:44 +0100 (CET)
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 11:25:44 +0100
Message-Id: <20181130.112544.1021452038429209831.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com
Cc: rwilton@cisco.com, j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de, netmod@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <8aa6b9c7-7d08-9ceb-36be-a54234561667@ericsson.com>
References: <dae0f227c663bdfa105e992c1ae088c22fa545bb.camel@nic.cz> <b45e6850-6943-073b-98a9-8aeab20b3d76@cisco.com> <8aa6b9c7-7d08-9ceb-36be-a54234561667@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 25.2 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/uS3eLL8j3GIzBQ2TXz-vOVnHsjA>
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: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 10:25:48 -0000
Balázs Lengyel <balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com> wrote: > Hello, > > In a similar manner we found multiple uses for the > ietf-netconf-acm:node-instance-identifier. We > imported nacm just to reuse this type. > Anyone else interested? Yes, this is a useful type that is not just NACM-specific. We also use in various places. /martin > > regards Balazs > > On 2018. 11. 29. 12:03, Robert Wilton wrote: > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > netmod@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > > -- > Balazs Lengyel Ericsson Hungary Ltd. > Senior Specialist > Mobile: +36-70-330-7909 email: Balazs.Lengyel@ericsson.com
- [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Joel Jaeggli
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Balázs Lengyel
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Qin Wu
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Qin Wu
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Qin Wu
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Qin Wu
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Qin Wu
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis tom petch
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Xufeng Liu
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Balázs Lengyel
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Xufeng Liu
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Qin Wu
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Yemin (Amy)
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Yemin (Amy)
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Per Hedeland
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Qin Wu
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Per Hedeland
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Balázs Lengyel
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Alex Campbell
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Balázs Lengyel
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis tom petch
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Acee Lindem (acee)