> On 08 Jun 2015, at 17:39, Kent Watsen <kwat...@juniper.net> wrote: > > > > >> I think the two leafs are coupled through the path statement and so the >> values of both should conform to the same type. If I extend Balazs¹ >> example with uint8 and 1..10 range: >> >> 1. Would a leafref value of 256 be acceptable? >> >> 2. How about "foo"? > > > I agree it doesn't makes sense, but is the configuration invalid?
It’s a matter of definition but IMO it should be defined as invalid. For example, an implementor can use the type information for allocating an internal data type for the leafref. > > The leafref is marked require-instance=false, it just means a matching > condition will never succeed. > > Would a configuration be invalid if a "when" expression could never > evaluate to true? We should distinguish between syntactic (schema & datatypes) and semantic errors (must & when, and actually also a violation of require-instance=true for leafrefs). Lada > > > Kent > -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
