On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote:
> > > 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? > it must be be relevant to distinguish instances or else the designer would have defined a key. > > > > > What breaks if this is allowed? > > The behaviour is undefined. > > IMO lists without keys are a really bad idea. But the semantics are fully defined according to YANG. If the list has no keys then there is no instance information relevant to the data model. The action or notification is passed all the keys (happens to be zero in this case). > Lada > Andy > > > > > > > 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
