Subject: [netmod] Attempts and timeouts in ietf-system

From: "Lange, Jeffrey K (GE Energy)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 13:52:28 +0000

The ietf-system model defines timeout and attempts leafs for both DNS and RADIUS servers as uint8 with no range.  This results in some ambiguity as to what the value of 0 means?  Does a server with attempts set to 0 mean it's in essence disabled?  Does a timeout of 0 imply it should wait forever?

I think that all of these fields should have a  range from 1..n, it just doesn't make sense to allow a zero value for these leafs.

Jeff Lange
Lead Software Engineer
GE Energy Services
Digital Energy

---

From: t.petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 14:45:09 +0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lange, Jeffrey K (GE Energy)" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 1:52 PM
Subject: [netmod] Attempts and timeouts in ietf-system

The ietf-system model defines timeout and attempts leafs for both DNS
and RADIUS servers as uint8 with no range.  This results in some
ambiguity as to what the value of 0 means?  Does a server with attempts
set to 0 mean it's in essence disabled?  Does a timeout of 0 imply it
should wait forever?

I think that all of these fields should have a  range from 1..n, it just
doesn't make sense to allow a zero value for these leafs.

<tp>
In many contexts in many systems, a timeout value of zero means no
timeout, so while that is worth making explicit, I would expect many to
take it for granted.

As to whether zero attempts means none or infinite, I would suggest that
the latter is less likely, but I have seen it.  Again, worth making
explicit.

Restricting ranges on the grounds that some do not make sense is
sensible when the rules for update make it simple to add new values.
When the rules for update prohibit this, or make in uneconomic to
contemplate, as happened recently with a management protocol, then it is
better to allow a wider range with a suitable textual discouragement,
e.g. ('RESERVED FOR FUTURE USE').

Tom Petch
</tp>
Jeff Lange
Lead Software Engineer
GE Energy Services
Digital Energy

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>

---

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 09:03:14 +0100 (CET)

Hi,

> doesn't make sense to allow a zero value for these leafs.

+1

> e.g. ('RESERVED FOR FUTURE USE').

YANG data model update rules allow us to expand the ranges later, if
needed.

/martin