Subject: Re: [netmod] Y45 again

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 17:10:29 +0200

On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 03:54:06PM -0400, Phil Shafer wrote:
> Juergen Schoenwaelder writes:
> >The only variation to consider is to be less strict for enums and
> >bits, that is allow additions since enums and bits are often used for
> >(controlled) extensions. In other words, to learn the actual value set
> >supported by an implementation, one has to ask the implementation
> >(similar to identities). (This is what SMIv2 allowed, you can add
> >named numbers to BITS and enumerated INTEGER types, but no other
> >changes to types are allowed.)
> 
> I'm confused; how does one ask the implementation for the list
> of supported identities?
>

There was such a proposal somewhere. Andy might recall.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 08:13:23 -0700

> There was such a proposal somewhere. Andy might recall.

An RPC called <et-supported-identities> I think.
But the YANG Conformance draft expired.

> /js

Andy