Re: [yang-doctors] How to restrict to have single control-plane-protocol instance

[Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]>]

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2/19/18, 5:02 AM, "Christian Hopps" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>     
>     Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]> writes:
>     
>     > Hi,
>     >
>     > "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>     >> All,
>     >>
>     >> As seems to be the modus operandi for YANG issues, we have 3 separate
>     >> opinions as to how a protocol only supporting a single instance should
>     >> be realized.
>     >>
>     >>   1. Augment the existing control plane protocols list (RFC 8022BIS)
>     >>   and specify in the description text that only a single instance is
>     >>   supported.
>     >>   2. Augment the existing control plane protocols list (RFC 8022BIS)
>     >>   and use a YANG 1.1 must() restriction as discussed by Martin and
>     >>   Lada.
>     >>   3. Augment the container one level up from the list for singleton
>     >>   protocols (suggested by Xufeng).
>     
>     > But I think there was also a proposal to require the single instance
>     > to have a well-known name - but maybe this proposal is no longer on
>     > the table.
>     
>     I actually liked this solution; however, instead of picking an
>     arbitrary "well-known" value for name, I would specify the 0 length
>     string instead. I think that reinforces the idea that this isn't
>     actually a named instance. :)
>     
>        augment "/rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/"
>              + "rt:control-plane-protocol" {
>           when "derived-from-or-self(rt:type, 'msdp:msdp') and rt:name = ''"  {
>           container msdp {
> 
> One benefit of this solution is that it solves Xufeng's issue of what
> the client uses as the instance name.

Note that with options #1 and #2, the client is of course free to send
the name "".  But the client isn't *restricted* to "" - it can use
whatever meaningful name it wants.



/martin