Hi,

It looks like neither 'mandatory' or 'default' has any effect in
this situation.  If the nested choices had sibling nodes
then these statements would be relevant.  Then selecting the
sibling would cause the mandatory or default choice to have meaning.


Andy


On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 8:35 AM, Balazs Lengyel <balazs.leng...@ericsson.com>
wrote:

> Hello,
> What do the mandatory statements mean in the following model ?
>
>            choice scen8 {  // Embedded choices with multiple mandatory
> cases; invalid scenario
>                case A {
>                    choice subChoiceA {
>                        mandatory true;
>                        case A {
>                            leaf scen8-num1 { type uint8; }
>                        }
>                        case B {
>                            leaf scen8-num2 { type uint8; }
>                        }
>                    }
>                }
>                case B {
>                    choice subChoiceB {
>                        mandatory true;
>                        case A {
>                            leaf scen8-num1 { type uint8; }
>                        }
>                        case B {
>                            leaf scen8-num2 { type uint8; }
>                        }
>                    }
>                }
>            }
>
> Answers:
> A1) They mean nothing because the case around subChoiceA/B might not
> exist, in which case its underlying statements are not valid.
> A2) They mean that one case from both subChoiceA AND subchoiceB must exist
> leading to two cases in choice scen8 which is not allowed, hence this is an
> invalid model?
>
> Generally I find choices embedded in choices to be so complicated that
> IMHO they SHOULD be immediately prohibited. If you think about all the
> variants of embedded choices with mandatory and default placed on some or a
> bunch of them, even understanding what they mean becomes a headache. BAD
> !!!! In the beginning YANG was about easy-understanding. However these
> combinations are unclear even after repeatedly reading the RFC :-(
>  As the very least we SHOULD prohibit mandatory/default on the inside
> choice.
>
> regards Balazs
>
> --
> Balazs Lengyel                       Ericsson Hungary Ltd.
> Senior Specialist
> ECN: 831 7320
> Mobile: +36-70-330-7909              email: balazs.leng...@ericsson.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Reply via email to