[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Issue 5.1) SSH End of message directive


On Dec 12, 2003, at 12:10 PM, Phil Shafer wrote: 
The following malformed session raises the importance of the
end-of-message marker:

    <rpc>
      <set-config/>
    <!-- missing rpc tag will corrupt the next operation -->
    <rpc>
      <validate/>
    </rpc>


This is an example of a broken protocol or framing protocol error
that would force the server to close the connection.


That seems too harsh for the human-pasting-into-ssh case-- isn't it
acceptable for both operations to fail together with one error?
(Unfortunately, it might no longer be clear to the client which
operation the error is associated with.)

Note, however, that this argues against the use of a simple
pre-processor,

And argues for a real framing protocol 

Agreed, but the use case for SSH doesn't allow that (it would be nice
to get some feedback from NANOG).

not against the use of <?eom?>.  <?eom?> could still be correctly
detected by
an XML parser.

How would it be detected in your CDATA case? 

When the <?eom?> is embedded in the CDATA section, the XML parser
ignores it, because it's CDATA.  It's only seen as a processing
instruction outside the CDATA section.

Ted.


--
to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>