Hello,
I propose a small clarification to the yang draft as described
below.
regards Balazs
Forwarded Message
Subject:
Re: Leafref and require-instance=false
RFC 6020 section 9.9:
The leafref type is used to reference a particular leaf instance in
the data tree. The "path" substatement (Section 9.9.2) selects a set
of leaf instances, and the leafref value space is the set of values
of these leaf instances.
I think the last statement above
Juergen Schoenwaelder writes:
> RFC 6020 section 9.9:
>
>The leafref type is used to reference a particular leaf instance in
>the data tree. The "path" substatement (Section 9.9.2) selects a set
>of leaf instances, and the leafref value space is the set of values
>of these leaf i
Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> Juergen Schoenwaelder writes:
>
> > RFC 6020 section 9.9:
> >
> >The leafref type is used to reference a particular leaf instance in
> >the data tree. The "path" substatement (Section 9.9.2) selects a set
> >of leaf instances, and the leafref value space is
On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 03:22:11PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> Juergen Schoenwaelder writes:
>
> > RFC 6020 section 9.9:
> >
> >The leafref type is used to reference a particular leaf instance in
> >the data tree. The "path" substatement (Section 9.9.2) selects a set
> >of leaf i
> Otherwise, the leafref value MUST be a valid value of the
> data type that is defined for the referenced leaf.
Is it a MUST or a SHOULD?
Obviously, if it's not a valid value, a match will never occur, but that's
a user error, no?
It comes down to a validation warning versus a validation erro
> On 08 Jun 2015, at 16:40, Kent Watsen wrote:
>
>
>> Otherwise, the leafref value MUST be a valid value of the
>> data type that is defined for the referenced leaf.
>
>
> Is it a MUST or a SHOULD?
>
> Obviously, if it's not a valid value, a match will never occur, but that's
> a user error,
>I think the two leafs are coupled through the path statement and so the
>values of both should conform to the same type. If I extend Balazs¹
>example with uint8 and 1..10 range:
>
>1. Would a leafref value of 256 be acceptable?
>
>2. How about "foo"?
I agree it doesn't makes sense, but is the
> On 08 Jun 2015, at 17:39, Kent Watsen wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> I think the two leafs are coupled through the path statement and so the
>> values of both should conform to the same type. If I extend Balazs¹
>> example with uint8 and 1..10 range:
>>
>> 1. Would a leafref value of 256 be acceptable?
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 8:39 AM, Kent Watsen wrote:
>
>
>
>>I think the two leafs are coupled through the path statement and so the
>>values of both should conform to the same type. If I extend Balazs¹
>>example with uint8 and 1..10 range:
>>
>>1. Would a leafref value of 256 be acceptable?
>>
>>2.
Andy Bierman wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 8:39 AM, Kent Watsen wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>I think the two leafs are coupled through the path statement and so the
> >>values of both should conform to the same type. If I extend Balazs¹
> >>example with uint8 and 1..10 range:
> >>
> >>1. Would a leaf
On 6/8/15, 12:33 PM, "Martin Bjorklund" wrote:
>Andy Bierman wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 8:39 AM, Kent Watsen wrote:
>>> The leafref is marked require-instance=false, it just means a matching
>> > condition will never succeed.
>> >
>>
>> If require-instance = false then the node must con
Andy Bierman writes:
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 8:39 AM, Kent Watsen wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I think the two leafs are coupled through the path statement and so the
>>>values of both should conform to the same type. If I extend Balazs¹
>>>example with uint8 and 1..10 range:
>>>
>>>1. Would a leafref va
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> Andy Bierman writes:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 8:39 AM, Kent Watsen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
I think the two leafs are coupled through the path statement and so the
values of both should conform to the same type. If I extend Balazs¹
>
Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> Andy Bierman writes:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 8:39 AM, Kent Watsen wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>I think the two leafs are coupled through the path statement and so the
> >>>values of both should conform to the same type. If I extend Balazs¹
> >>>example with uint8 and
15 matches
Mail list logo
