Subject: [netmod] strawman REJECT Y31 allow require-instance in leafref

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2014 17:20:01 +0200

This can already be done in other ways.

Speak up by June 10th if you disagree with this strawman proposal.

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

---

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2014 20:27:44 +0200 (CEST)

> This can already be done in other ways.

How?

We have a vendor-specific extension to deal with this.

The current situation means leafrefs and instance-identifiers have
different behavior, for no apparent reason.

> Speak up by June 10th if you disagree with this strawman proposal.

I do not agree with this.  Our experience is that this is pretty
useful.

/martin

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2014 12:06:01 -0700

> I do not agree with this.  Our experience is that this is pretty
The require-instance sub-stmt was removed from leafref at some
point type because the leaf type could just be copied instead.

In hindsight, it is better not to cut-and-paste the type reference.
If the original leaf has an inline type-stmt then there is no typedef-stmt
to share,
and cut-and-paste will get out of sync if the original leaf is updated.

The require-instance false; statement would allow more loosely
coupled dependencies, even if the referenced leaf does not
use an exported typedef that can be shared.

I agree this should be an open issue.

> /martin

Andy