Hi Robert, > On 04 Oct 2016, at 13:55, Robert Varga <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello, > > I would like to ask about interoperability of RPC's input statement and > augments. Given two modules: > > module foo { > rpc foo { > output { > leaf foo { type string; } > } > } > } > > module bar { > import foo { prefix foo; } > > augment /foo:foo/input { > leaf bar { type string; } > } > } > > Should the augment statement trigger a failure or not? > > My take is that it should fail, as the lack of an empty input statement > in foo indicates the author's intent that the RPC should not have an > extensible input...
Sec. 7.14 says: The "rpc" statement defines an rpc node in the schema tree. Under the rpc node, a schema node with the name "input" and a schema node with the name "output" are also defined. This seems to be independent of whether "input" and "output" statements are present, so I believe your example is valid. Lada > > Thanks, > Robert > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
