Re: element order error processing

[Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>]

Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com> wrote:
> I know -- I was trying to point out that our error codes are overloaded.
> 
> IMO, we will probably want to refine this sooner or later.

I agree.

> > However, your implementation could use an error-app-tag to further
> > describe this situation, if you can detect it.
> >   
> 
> Yes, I guess I will.
> But this is not good enough for an interoperable standard.

I agree.  Currently we have 5 app-tags, all of them data modelling
specific.

> >> Is an agent implementation allowed to ignore wrong-order errors
> >> or must all elements always be given in a fixed order?
> >>     
> >
> > This must be depending on the data model.  A data model could be
> > defined with a strict order or not.  (compare w/ xs:all in a
> > complexType in XML Schema).
> >   
> 
> So it's up to the data modeling language, not XML itself?
> That's what I was hoping.
> 
> So we don't HAVE to ignore the Postel Principle if we don't want to?
> 
> It really goes against common sense to reject an RPC with an error
> like "parameter 2 and 3 are in the wrong order".  If the agent knows
> all the parameters are present and accounted for,  that is good enough.
> I'm not trying to force every agent to do this (I would say MAY, not MUST).

A well-defined order might be easier to implement - an agent might
have to buffer lots of data if the order is undefined.  We do not use
xs:all in our modelling language, i.e. we have a strict order.



/martin

--
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/>