RFC 8349 uses an unbounded string for control-plane-protocol so this definition
would be consistent. However, we've been putting bounds on strings that are
encoded in packets and this is probably something we should do for all strings.
container control-plane-protocols {
description
"Support for control-plane protocol instances.";
list control-plane-protocol {
key "type name";
description
"Each entry contains a control-plane protocol instance.";
leaf type {
type identityref {
base control-plane-protocol;
}
description
"Type of the control-plane protocol -- an identity
derived from the 'control-plane-protocol'
base identity.";
}
leaf name {
type string;
description
"An arbitrary name of the control-plane protocol
instance.";
}
Thanks,
Acee
Thanks,
Acee
On 12/12/22, 7:09 AM, "Lsr on behalf of tom petch" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> on behalf of [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
What is the recommended way of identifying an instance of the routing protocol
I S I S within a node?
draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang proposes (Appendix B.5) an
unrestricted string, ie almost any Unicode character up to a length of
18446744073709551615 characters long (my favourite number).
Is this the recommended way of doing it?
Tom Petch
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
