2018-01-12 20:04 GMT+08:00 Ian Farrer <[email protected]>:
> Hi Linhui,
>
> > 4) The usage of choice statement is not very clear, why do we need to
>> use the 'case' and 'feature' statements together? It seems that we only
>> need one of them.
>>
>> [if - Well, a CE may implement binding and/or algorithm. If it implements
>> one, then there is no choice to be made. If it implements both, then it can
>> only configure one type hence the choice. If it needed to implement two
>> types for whatever reason, then there would be two instances of the model
>> attached to different interfaces.
>>
> [LH]: That sounds strange, why not just restricting the CE/BR instance
> (not the actual device) to be only one of them (i.e. binding & algorithm)?
> In this way, only 'if-feature' is needed.
>
>
> Can you provide a (high level) example of how you would structure this?
>
Hi Ian,
This is what defined in the current model:
choice br-type {
case binding {
if-feature binding;
container binding {
if-feature binding;
...
}
}
case algorithm {...}
}
What if we just use the following:
container binding {
if-feature binding;
...
}
container algorithm {
if-feature algorithm;
...
}
>
> Thanks,
> Ian
>
>
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
