On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 04:35:44PM +0100, Martin Björklund wrote:
> [re-sent w/ correct address]
>
> Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > two comments:
> >
> > - It is unclear to me whether this really qualifies as an errata.
> >
> > - If we add this, then there should probably text about which
> > combinations are allowed. For example, for pattern and ranges, there
> > is explicit text that says further restrictions of the value space
> > are possible, bot not expansions. If we follow that logic, then
> >
> > typedef a {
> > type leaf-ref {
> > path "/some/thing";
> > require-instance true;
> > }
> > }
> >
> > typedef b {
> > type a {
> > require-instance false;
> > }
> > }
> >
> > might be illegal since b has a larger value space than a.
>
> The value space of b is the same as for a. "require-instance" doesn't
> change the value space; it changes semantic validation of the given
> values ((see my mail from 17 Mar, "Require-instance problem").
>
> /martin
OK. If we consider require-instance a constraint and not a
restriction, then the motivation for this errata is at least
confusing:
Since no one argued against this understanding, this errata changes
the text to the same form as in other restrictions applicable to
derived types.
Simply put: Do you think it is OK to overwrite a require-instance true
with a require-instance false in a derived type?
/js
--
Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
