You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
(9) p 16, sec 4.3. YANG Module
md:annotation remaining {
type union {
type uint32;
type enumeration {
enum "unknown" {
description
"Indicates that number of remaining entries is unknown
to the server in case, e.g., the server has determined
that counting would be prohibitively expensive.";
}
}
}
description
"This annotation contains the number of elements not included
in the result set (a positive value) due to a 'limit' or
'sublist-limit' operation. If no elements were removed,
this annotation MUST NOT appear. The minimum value (0),
which never occurs in normal operation, is reserved to
represent 'unknown'. The maximum value (2^32-1) is
reserved to represent any value greater than or equal
to 2^32-1 elements.";
}
I suggest adding reference statements to indicate which parts of the
draft/RFC further define the behaviour, both for this extension and also
the following entries. This comment particularly applies to the next and
previous cursor field descriptions that appear to be particularly terse.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
(9) p 16, sec 4.3. YANG Module
md:annotation remaining {
type union {
type uint32;
type enumeration {
enum "unknown" {
description
"Indicates that number of remaining entries is unknown
to the server in case, e.g., the server has determined
that counting would be prohibitively expensive.";
}
}
}
description
"This annotation contains the number of elements not included
in the result set (a positive value) due to a 'limit' or
'sublist-limit' operation. If no elements were removed,
this annotation MUST NOT appear. The minimum value (0),
which never occurs in normal operation, is reserved to
represent 'unknown'. The maximum value (2^32-1) is
reserved to represent any value greater than or equal
to 2^32-1 elements.";
}
I suggest adding reference statements to indicate which parts of the
draft/RFC further define the behaviour, both for this extension and also
the following entries. This comment particularly applies to the next and
previous cursor field descriptions that appear to be particularly terse.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: