"Peter Kajsa -X (pkajsa - PANTHEON TECHNOLOGIES at Cisco)" <pka...@cisco.com> wrote: > 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…
Yes, this works the same way in both YANG 1 and 1.1. The new sentence was added as a clarification to 7950. /martin > > 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