Hi,
"Beauville, Yves (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" wrote:
> Hello,
>
> In the example provided in section 7.9.3 of RFC7950, is it legal to
> redefine the default case like below?
>
> container transfer {
> choice how {
> default manual; // redefined
> case interval {
> leaf interval {
> type uint16;
> units minutes;
> default 30;
> }
> }
> case daily {
> leaf daily {
> type empty;
> }
> leaf time-of-day {
> type string;
> units 24-hour-clock;
> default "01.00";
> }
> }
> case manual {
> leaf manual {
> type empty;
> }
> }
> }
> }
Section 7.9.3 says:
The default case is only important when considering the "default"
statements of nodes under the cases (i.e., default values of leafs
and leaf-lists, and default cases of nested choices). The default
values and nested default cases under the default case are used if
none of the nodes under any of the cases are present.
So, yes it is legal, but doesn't mean anything.
> What is expected to happen when an request creates the
> 'transfer' container without providing any data for the choice 'how'?
The behaviour is the same as if you didn't have the default statement
in the choice.
> Since an empty leaf conveys information by its presence or absence, and
> cannot have a default value, is it correct to assume that the 'manual'
> leaf will be present, even though it was not explicitly created by the
> request?
No.
> Can someone clarify?
/martin
___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
