problems with 'ignore-error' <error-option>

[Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com>]

Hi,

We have heard from one implementer that says they cannot
support the ignore-error <error-option> in the <edit-config> operation.
Now one more.

Here is the total documentation on the ignore-error option:

        ignore-error: Continue to process configuration data on error;
           error is recorded and negative response is generated if any
           errors occur.

1) How many operators want this option?

2) How many vendors are supporting this option?

3) What does this option really mean?

  - ignore malformed XML?
    Most tools won't do that.  This is not only dangerous,
    it isn't very easy to do.

  - ignore missing parameters?  What happens if the <config>
    parameter is missing?

  - ignore extra parameters?

  - use RPC parameters that don't pass the schema validation tests?

  - ignore access control violations?

  - ignore lock access violations?

  - ignore unsupported portions of the config parameter sub-tree?

  - use parameters that fail the referential integrity tests?

  - continue to install child nodes of a parent node with errors?
    (How?)


IMO, this mandatory feature of the NETCONF protocol is poorly defined,
hard or impossible to implement, and has no chance of interoperability.
It needs to be fixed or removed from the protocol.

Andy



--
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/>