Martin Bjorklund <mbj at tail-f.com> wrote: >>>>> mbj> OLD: >>>>> mbj> >>>>> mbj> The definition of the default value MUST NOT be marked with an >>>>> mbj> "if-feature" statement. >>>>> mbj> >>>>> mbj> NEW: >>>>> mbj> >>>>> mbj> If the definition of the default value is conditional based >>>>> mbj> on one or more features (see ^if-feature^), then the leaf >>>>> mbj> node MUST also be conditional based on at least the same >>>>> mbj> set of features. >>>>> mbj> >>>>> mbj> (modelled after the text in 9.9) >>>>> >>>>> Does anyone have comments on this proposal?
> I was careful to use the same wording as is used in section 9.9 on > leafrefs: > > If the leaf that the leafref refers to is conditional based on one or > more features (see Section 7.20.2), then the leaf with the leafref > type MUST also be conditional based on at least the same set of > features. > > So we already have the complexity. That sounds good to me. As y'all say, it's complex to check, but it's the same check being done for leafrefs, so there's no additional conceptual complexity. Dale _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
