> On 29 Apr 2016, at 15:07, Juergen Schoenwaelder > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:57:36PM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> >> Or are you saying that "type foo {}" is not the same as "type foo;"? >> > > Yes, "type foo {}" has a restriction while "type foo;" does not have a > restriction. OK, I think I see your point now that we have a case > where there is a subtle difference between "{}" and ";" and so you > suggest to interpret "type foo {}" as all values of foo?
Now it becomes really interesting! :-) I wonder if there is any YANG parser out there that is able to distinguish those two syntactic forms. I think they must be considered identical by all means. My point was that the text about restrictions of the "enumeration" type is unclear, and IMO the more logical answer to my original question is that the "bar" set is empty. This is most likely not the 1.0 semantics though. Lada > > /js > > -- > 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/> -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
