Martin Bjorklund <[email protected]> writes: > Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 05:11:28PM +0200, Martin Bjorklund wrote: >> > 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. >> > >> >> OK. I guess RFC 6020 section 9.11.2. confused me. Is the lexical >> representation not simply an empty string? > > No, since the empty string in JSON is "". > > A leaf of type empty doesn't have a value, thus there is no lexical > represention. > >> I mean, it seems that >> >> <foo> >> <id></id> >> </foo> >> >> would be as valid as >> >> <foo><id/></foo> > > Correct. > >> or am I confused? And in JSON it would be this? >> >> "foo": [ >> { >> "id": [null] >> } >> ] > > I think this is correct.
Yes. Lada > > > /martin > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
