Thanks Yingzhen. Yes I am good with that.
Regards,
Reshad.
On Monday, January 22, 2024, 02:39:17 PM EST, Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> 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 <reshad@xxxxxxxxx> 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? uint16On 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
