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 <reshad@xxxxxxxxx> 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.
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
