> On 04 Apr 2016, at 15:57, Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > I do not see any reason to prohibit this use of action-stmt > or notification-stmt. If the list has no keys then there is > no need to distinguish instances because the data model defines > no such semantics.
If such a keyless list has multiple entries, how can an action request specify which of the list entries it is tied to? > > What breaks if this is allowed? The behaviour is undefined. Lada > > > Andy > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > Hi, > > in the thread [1], we agreed that it is necessary to prevent actions (and > notifications) being defined on a state data node that is (or its ancestor > is) a list for which no keys are defined because then the instance to which > the action is tied may not be uniquely defined. The rfc6020bis-11 doesn't > address this situation though. Is it still possible to add a corresponding > text to sections 7.15 and 7.16? > > Lada > > [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg14936.html > > -- > Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs > PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
