Thanks Yingzhen. Yes I am good with that.
Regards,Reshad.
On Monday, January 22, 2024, 02:39:17 PM EST, Yingzhen Qu
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Reshad,
Thanks for the review.
The "sid-binding-tlv" and "mt-sid-binding-tlv" are relatively big with more
content, so I thought it might be easier to read with a container. But you're
right, it's not following the YANG traditions, how about the following?
container sid-binding-tlvs { list sid-binding-tlv { key
"prefix"; uses sid-binding-tlv; description "Sid/label
binding TLV, type 149."; } description "List of sid/label
binding TLVs."; } container mt-sid-binding-tlvs { list
mt-sid-binding-tlv { key "prefix mt-id"; uses sid-binding-tlv;
leaf mt-id { type uint16; description "A
12-bit field containing the non-zero ID of the topology."; }
description "Multi-Topology SID/Label binding TLV, type 150.";
reference "RFC 8667 - IS-IS Extensions for Segment Routing,
Section 2.5"; } description "List of multi-topology
sid/label binding TLVs."; }
Thanks,Yingzhen
On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 6:07 AM Reshad Rahman <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi,
Typically we have a container (plural) including a list (singular). In -20 it
was done the other way round. Since this is read-only, IIRC we don't need the
container including a list as we do for read-write. Is the container there for
convenience?
Regards,Reshad.
augment /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols
/rt:control-plane-protocol/isis:isis/isis:database
/isis:levels/isis:lsp:
+--ro sid-binding-tlvs* []
| +--ro sid-binding-tlv
| +--ro prefix? inet:ip-prefix
| +--ro range? uint16
| +--ro sid-binding-flags
| | +--ro flags* identityref
| +--ro prefix-sid-sub-tlvs* []
| | +--ro prefix-sid-sub-tlvs
| | +--ro prefix-sid-sub-tlv* [sid]
| | +--ro prefix-sid-flags
| | | +--ro flags* identityref
| | +--ro algorithm? identityref
| | +--ro sid uint32
| +--ro sid-sub-tlvs* []
| | +--ro sid-sub-tlv
| | +--ro length? uint8
| | +--ro sid? uint32
| +--ro unknown-tlvs
| +--ro unknown-tlv* []
| +--ro type? uint16
| +--ro length? uint16
| +--ro value? yang:hex-string
+--ro mt-sid-binding-tlvs* []
+--ro mt-sid-binding-tlvs
+--ro prefix? inet:ip-prefix
+--ro range? uint16
+--ro sid-binding-flags
| +--ro flags* identityref
+--ro prefix-sid-sub-tlvs* []
| +--ro prefix-sid-sub-tlvs
| +--ro prefix-sid-sub-tlv* [sid]
| +--ro prefix-sid-flags
| | +--ro flags* identityref
| +--ro algorithm? identityref
| +--ro sid uint32
+--ro sid-sub-tlvs* []
| +--ro sid-sub-tlv
| +--ro length? uint8
| +--ro sid? uint32
+--ro unknown-tlvs
| +--ro unknown-tlv* []
| +--ro type? uint16
| +--ro length? uint16
| +--ro value? yang:hex-string
+--ro mt-id? uint16 On Saturday, January 20, 2024,
06:53:52 PM EST, Reshad Rahman <[email protected]> wrote:
[Yingzhen]: Thanks for catching this. I've updated the description.<Reshad> I
looked at the changes in -20. That grouping is now gone and the
(mt-)sid-binding-tlvs lists have no key, is that the intent?Also container
mt-sid-binding-tlvs should be renamed to mt-sid-binding-tlv.
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
