On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 7:16 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:16:55PM +0200, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Currently we have an inconsistency in
> > draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-05. With Y35, we allow type empty in
> > unions. But section 7.8.2 says:
> >
> > A leaf that is part of the key can be of any built-in or derived
> > type, except it MUST NOT be the built-in type "empty".
> >
> > This means that this is legal:
> >
> > typedef my-empty {
> > type union {
> > type empty;
> > }
> > }
> >
> > list foo {
> > key id;
> > leaf id {
> > type my-empty;
> > }
> > ...
> > }
> >
> > I suggest we allow type empty also in keys:
> >
> > NEW:
> >
> > A leaf that is part of the key can be of any built-in or derived
> > type.
>
> And my understanding is that the list foo defined above will never
> have an instance, correct? I assume decent compilers will continue to
> create warnings when they can decide that a list will never have any
> instances. (And yes, there are other ways to construct such lists, so
> I am OK with removing a constraint preventing a specific case of such
> useless lists.)
>
>
I think the list can have 1 instance.
/js
>
Andy
>
> --
> Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
