"Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Martin - see inline. > > On 8/8/18, 3:43 AM, "Martin Bjorklund" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > "Acee Lindem \(acee\)" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Is it possible to indicate that choice statement must be specified > > in a YANG 1.1 “must” clause w/o specifying every case? > > Do you mean that you to ensure that a case is always configured? If > so, mark the choice as "mandatory true". It can't be done with an > XPath expression. > > It's not that easy since at the least the choice or another leaf > must be specified.
Maybe you can share the model (or a simplified version) in order to illustrate the problem? /martin > I found that the choice and case identifiers are > not part of the Xpath. Even after rereading some sections of > RFC7950, this wasn't intuitive. > > Thanks, > Acee > > > /martin > > > > > Similarly, it is there a way specify that a container cannot be empty > in “must” clause? > > Thanks, > > Acee > > _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
