RE: [NGO] NETCONF Data types

Hi

But just because they are used in programming, doesn't mean we need to
distinguish them in the XSD. I'm going to check with some of my apps
people to see whether they would find this distinction useful or if a
single integer which could be as large as 64 bit is fine at this later
point in time. But I was more specifically worried about counter versus
gauge versus integer versus unsigned integer versus. Historically these
turned into CLRs.

An advantage here if we don't limit the length of our integers, we won't
need to rewrite our Schema when we need 128bit integers ;-)

Sharon 

-----Original Message-----
From: Balazs Lengyel [mailto:balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 3:32 AM
To: Chisholm, Sharon (CAR:ZZ00)
Cc: ngo@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [NGO] NETCONF Data types

Hello Sharon,
The uint32, int64 etc. integer types are not a left-overs from SMI. They
are the integer types that people normally use in programing. Names like
uint16, int32 are better then short or long. They tell you exactly what
you deal with. I see this as an improvement over the XSD types.
Balazs

Sharon Chisholm wrote:
> Hi
> 
> One of the things that people seemed to agree on early in the NETCONF 
> content discussion was that SNMP & SMI defined too many similar data 
> types and we didn't want to do that in NETCONF. Do people still agree 
> that we don't want 30 flavours of integers defined? I prefer focusing 
> our efforts on defining higher level data types.
> 
> Sharon Chisholm
> Nortel
> Ottawa, Ontario
> Canada
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NGO mailing list
> NGO@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ngo

_______________________________________________
NGO mailing list
NGO@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ngo