Re: [L3sm] New Version Notification for draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-03.txt

["Jan Lindblad (jlindbla)" <[e-mail]>]

Clarity may be somewhat subjective ;-) but this is also perfectly fine -- if this is the desired semantics, obviously.
/jan

I think a clearer way to achieve this (if it is the desired behaviour) is:

leaf address-family { ... }
leaf address {
    when ../address-family;
    mandatory true;
}

This has the same effect as below (either both must be specified, or neither are), but avoids confusing the reader with a choice that only has one option.


    David

On 16/09/2017 04:04, Qin Wu wrote:
Another option could be to introduce an optional choice here with one alternative, with both elements mandatory.

choice automatic-or-specific-address {
  case specific-address {
    leaf address-family {
      mandatory true;
      ...
    }
    leaf address {
      mandatory true;
      ...
    }
  }
  description "By default address allocation happens automatically. Customer may override using these settings.";
}

Either way, they would both be optional, but come and go as one unit.


--
David Ball
<[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>