On 12/9/14 9:54 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Dec 9, 2014, at 9:31 AM, t.p. <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:The expression that controls the permissible format of IPv6 addresses in yang-types is of this ilk. " type string { pattern '((:|[0-9a-fA-F]{0,4}):)([0-9a-fA-F]{0,4}:){0,5}' + '((([0-9a-fA-F]{0,4}:)?(:|[0-9a-fA-F]{0,4}))|' + '(((25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|[01]?[0-9]?[0-9])\.){3}' + '(25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|[01]?[0-9]?[0-9])))' + '(/(([0-9])|([0-9]{2})|(1[0-1][0-9])|(12[0-8])))'; pattern '(([^:]+:){6}(([^:]+:[^:]+)|(.*\..*)))|' + '((([^:]+:)*[^:]+)?::(([^:]+:)*[^:]+)?)' + '(/.+)'; " which was got wrong several times before it became what it is now (which rings alarm bells for me).Wow, so there's no way to do this ABNF-style? This is certainly something to be concerned about. A syntax that is difficult to internalize without working on it full-time is not a good idea. OTOH, it's hard to have a syntax that is not at least _somewhat_ difficult to internalize if you aren't working on it full time, so to some extent this is a matter of degree.
I would concur that is something that the everyday yang user should never have to do on a regular basis. If we do, then we need to fix this. I believe this is why libraries were invented.
tim