Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 8:39 AM, 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?
>>
>> The leafref is marked require-instance=false, it just means a matching
>> condition will never succeed.
>>
>
> If require-instance = false then the node must conform to
> the data type for the leaf. This means the typedef used
> in the implemented version.
>
>> Would a configuration be invalid if a "when" expression could never
>> evaluate to true?
>>
>
> The node would never appear in a configuration.
> A must-stmt then is always false would make the config invalid.
What's actually relevant to the subject of this thread (and supports
Kent's point somewhat) is this example:
leaf foo {
type uint8;
must ". <= 10";
}
leaf bar {
type leafref {
require-instance false;
path "../foo";
}
}
Should <bar>20</bar> be flagged as invalid? IMO no. At first sight it
looks exactly like Balazs' example but in fact it is different - if
there is no "foo", the must expression doesn't apply.
Lada
>
>
>>
>> Kent
>>
>
>
> Andy
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> netmod mailing list
>> netmod@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
--
Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
