Andy Bierman <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Yes. /martin _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
