On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Tim Wicinski
<tjw(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 12/9/14 9:54 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Dec 9, 2014, at 9:31 AM, t.p. <daedulus(_at_)btconnect(_dot_)com> 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.
I disagree.
Any tool capable of describing IPv6 should ONLY be used for describing
structures at the packet layer. That is the only layer where bit twiddling
to save a few bytes on the wire is acceptable.
When I design a tool, my objective is to narrow the gap between the
abstract formalism used to describe the specification and the concrete
specification. The above syntax does not look like this is a tool that is
of the slightest use to me because I don't think it reduces the likelihood
of error. I am just as likely to get the specification wrong as the code.
This is why I became disillusioned with formal methods back in the day.
Trying to use one tool for bit twiddling and for application work is a
disaster. The point of a specification is to take away flexibility that
does not matter. YANG is a general purpose tool that lets anything be
specified. I want greater constraints.