On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Ladislav Lhotka lho...@nic.cz wrote:
Andy Bierman a...@yumaworks.com writes:
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 8:39 AM, Kent Watsen kwat...@juniper.net wrote:
I think the two leafs are coupled through the path statement and so the
values of both should conform to the
Ladislav Lhotka lho...@nic.cz wrote:
Andy Bierman a...@yumaworks.com writes:
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 8:39 AM, Kent Watsen kwat...@juniper.net wrote:
I think the two leafs are coupled through the path statement and so the
values of both should conform to the same type. If I extend
Andy Bierman a...@yumaworks.com writes:
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 8:39 AM, Kent Watsen kwat...@juniper.net wrote:
I think the two leafs are coupled through the path statement and so the
values of both should conform to the same type. If I extend Balazs¹
example with uint8 and 1..10 range:
1.
I think the two leafs are coupled through the path statement and so the
values of both should conform to the same type. If I extend Balazs¹
example with uint8 and 1..10 range:
1. Would a leafref value of 256 be acceptable?
2. How about foo?
I agree it doesn't makes sense, but is the
Andy Bierman a...@yumaworks.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 8:39 AM, Kent Watsen kwat...@juniper.net wrote:
I think the two leafs are coupled through the path statement and so the
values of both should conform to the same type. If I extend Balazs¹
example with uint8 and 1..10 range:
