Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Correct typo in protocol-name description #1185

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Correct typo in protocol-name description #1185

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
11 changes: 9 additions & 2 deletions release/models/network-instance/openconfig-network-instance-policy.yang
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -25,7 +25,14 @@ module openconfig-network-instance-policy {
actions) for the network instance model. These statements are
generally added to the routing policy model.";

oc-ext:openconfig-version "0.1.2";
oc-ext:openconfig-version "0.1.3";

revision "2024-09-19" {
description
"Correct typo in description of
match-protocol-instance/protocol-name.";
reference "0.1.3";
}

revision "2023-07-25" {
description
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -74,7 +81,7 @@ revision "2018-11-21" {
on in the local network instance. The string
must match one of /network-instances/
network-instance/protocols/
protocol/identifier in the local network
protocol/name in the local network
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The typo correction is correct however it's worth pointing out that these constructs are heavily relying on description statements to describe the intent vs. formulating proper model restrictions to enforce existence of these list keys within a local NI context.

PR as-is LGTM but this modeling should be reworked as a subsequent issue as I'm noticing now.

It requires implementations to have to build special logic outside of the schema that can provide inconsistencies. This identityref allows for ANY protocol type to be referenced legally and any unbound string for the name. Maybe the grouping should not be so loose especially when there is only 1 current usage

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Anything I can do to help it? I am implementer, and I needed this ambiguous point resolved. I would of course always welcome more clarity on the schema level, but for now correct description is better than nothing. I would prefer to keep an issue of matching against technically unbound space of potential protocol names separate.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That's why I said this LGTM as-is.... should not block this PR

I'd suggest proposing a separate PR to rework solving restrictions/relationships in the modeling vs. description stmts post this merge (as that will take slightly longer to likely come to consensus)

instance.";
}
}
Expand Down