Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 01:31:01PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 09:48:55AM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to resolve this issue. Here is a complete example (valid, I
> > > > believe):
> > > >
> > >
> > > Sorry for asking a stupid question but what is the use case of
> > > referencing state data from an xpath expression in RPC input or
> > > output parameters?
> >
> > It all started with leafrefs in notifications. The algorithm in RFC
> > 6643 produces leafrefs from notifications to state data. See Y04.
> >
> > For the same reason, you may want to reference let's say an interface
> > name in the /interfaces-state/interface list from an RPC input
> > parameter.
> >
>
> Yes, but where does xpath come into play?
The leafref's path is XPath. See the example in Y04. It might be
surprising that this is illegal (if we do Y04-04):
rpc foo {
input {
leaf ifref {
type leafref {
path "/if:interfaces-state/if:interface/if:name";
}
must "/if:interfaces-state/if:interface[if:name = current()/ifref]"
+ "/if:enabled";
}
}
}
The leafref is legal, but the must expression would be illegal.
/martin
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
