Hi,

RFC7950 section 7.9.2. says that if a “case” statement is omitted (i.e. “case” 
shorthand) and implicit “case” node is created, schema node identifiers MUST 
always explicitly include the implicit “case” node identifiers. So the 
following snippet from yang model (below) is valid for Yang 1.1. However, is it 
also valid for Yang 1.0 ? RFC6020 is not clear about this and there is no 
section saying that schema node identifiers MUST always explicitly include the 
implicit “case” node identifiers…

    choice my-choice {
        container implicit-case-container {
        }
    }

    augment "/my-choice/implicit-case-container" {
        leaf leaf-after-container {
            type empty;
        }
    }

    augment "/my-choice/implicit-case-container/implicit-case-container" {
        leaf leaf-inside-container {
            type empty;
        }
    }

Thanks.
[http://wwwin.cisco.com/c/dam/cec/organizations/gmcc/services-tools/signaturetool/images/logo/logo_Cisco_Blue.png]



Peter Kajsa
Engineer - Software
pka...@cisco.com<mailto:pka...@cisco.com>
Tel:

Cisco Systems, Inc.



Slovakia
cisco.com


[http://www.cisco.com/assets/swa/img/thinkbeforeyouprint.gif]Think before you 
print.

This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of 
the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others 
is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to 
receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete 
all copies of this message.
Please click 
here<http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html> for 
Company Registration Information.


_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
  • [netmod] “case” s... Peter Kajsa -X (pkajsa - PANTHEON TECHNOLOGIES at Cisco)

Reply via email to