Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question: empty mandatory choice? (was RE: YangPush now)

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 07:22:40PM +0000, Eric Voit (evoit) wrote:

> For all receivers in a subscription, the selected transport choice
> case in Kent’s suggestion above MUST match to the value of the
> “transport” leaf which is one level higher in the tree.  I.e.:
> 
>     +--rw subscriptions
>        +--rw subscription* [identifier]
>           +--rw transport                                  transport {configured}?
>           +--rw receivers
>              +--rw receiver* [name]
>              +--rw (transport)
>                 +--rw :(NETCONF)
>                 |  +--rw (NETCONF specific call home parameters)
>                 +--rw :(HTTP2)
>                     +--rw (HTTP2 specific parameters)
> 
> (Note on the tree above, I inserted the NETCONF and HTTP2 cases of
> transport for illustration purposes for the question below.  These
> two cases would actually be incorporated via separate augmentations
> to the ietf-subscribed-notifications.yang model.)
> 
> Considering above, It seems difficult to enforce that the transport
> cases selected under all receivers for a single subscription MUST be
> identical, and also MUST match to the value of the “transport” leaf
> under the subscription.

Why is the transport leaf needed if the choice cases identify the
transport? Why do all receivers of a subscription have to use the same
transport?

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>