|
Hi Reshad, Thanks for the link to verify JSON, it’s very helpful. I’ve uploaded version -07. Please let me know if you have any comments. Thanks, Yingzhen From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@xxxxxxxxx> Hi Yingzhen, The JSON example doesn’t seem ok because it only contains 1 edit entry. To confirm I went to
https://jsonlint.com/ and it 1st complained about missing comma after the } for source-value and when I fixed that it complained about Duplicate key ‘edit-id’. FYI, the JSON block below passed the lint check. Regards, Reshad. { "ietf-nmda-compare:output": { "differences": { "ietf-yang-patch:yang-patch": { "patch-id": "interface status", "comment": "diff between intended (source) and operational", "edit": [ { "edit-id": "1", "operation": "replace", "target": "/ietf-interfaces:interface=eth0/enabled", "value": { "ietf-interfaces:interface/enabled": "false" }, "source-value": { "ietf-interfaces:interface/enabled": "true", "@ietf-interfaces:interface/enabled": { "ietf-origin:origin": "ietf-origin:learned" } } }, { "edit-id": "2", "operation": "create", "target": "/ietf-interfaces:interface=eth0/description", "value": { "ietf-interface:interface/description": "ip interface" } } ] } } } } From: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.qu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Hi Reshad, Thank you for the example. I modified the XML example as you suggested. The JSON example looks ok to me. Also fixed the nit to reference RFC 6991. New generated txt file attached, please let me know if you see more issues. Thanks, Yingzhen From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@xxxxxxxxx> Hi Yingzhen, Yes I believe this part is broken, since you have multiple edit-id elements for 1 edit element, below is the YANG snippet from RFC8072. list edit { key edit-id; ordered-by user; <snip> leaf edit-id { type string; description "Arbitrary string index for the edit. Error messages returned by the server that pertain to a specific edit will be identified by this value."; } If you take a look at A.1.1 of RFC8072, there is an example with multiple edit elements. Regards, Reshad. From: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.qu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Hi Reshad, Thank you for your review. About the example, in RFC 8072, in the list “edit”, each edit is identified by “edit-id”. So the example looks like: <edit> <edit-id>1</edit-id> ….. <edit-id>2</edit-id> …. </edit> Do you mean this part is broken? Thanks, Yingzhen From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@xxxxxxxxx> Hi Alex, Thank you for addressing my comments.
I checked rev-06, and I believe the XML and JSON output in the example is broken: there is a single “edit” element with multiple “edit-id” elements. I believe there should be multiple “edit” elements. The only “nit” is that leaf-xpath-filter references 6021 instead of 6991 (as you correctly pointed out in your response). leaf xpath-filter { if-feature nc:xpath; type yang:xpath1.0; description "This parameter contains an XPath _expression_ identifying the portions of the target datastore to retrieve."; reference "RFC 6021: Common YANG Data Types"; } > Issues > 1. YANG model P8, for “leaf xpath-filter”, add reference to RFC6021. There should also be a normative reference to RFC6021 (as per RFC8407) <ALEX> Thanks. Adding reference to 6991 (as 6021 is obsoleted). </ALEX> Regards, Reshad. From: Alexander L Clemm <ludwig@xxxxxxxxx> Thank you! I just uploaded rev -06. --- Alex On 9/18/2020 12:47 PM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) wrote:
|
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
