Re: url clarification

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

Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com> wrote:
> Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com> wrote:
> >   
> >> Did we ever resolve all the issues here? (A: no)
> >>
> >> Here are the operations that use rpcOperationTargetType:
> >>
> >>   operation            text-allows-url     notes
> >>   ------------------------------------------------
> >>   edit-config                N               1
> >>   copy-config                Y               2
> >>   delete-config              Y               3
> >>   lock                       N               4
> >>   unlock                     N               4
> >>     
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >   
> >> Summary Issues:
> >>
> >> A) Which is right: The text or the XSD?
> >>    Should the edit-config, lock, and unlock XSD definitions change from
> >>    rpcOperationTargetType to configNameType?  This will explicitly
> >>    disallow URL as <target> in these operations.
> >>     
> >
> > I think the text makes more sense than the XSD.
> >   
> 
> I can see it both ways.
> One one hand, I sure don't want to make it mandatory
> for the :url capability to include <url> as a target of edit-config.
> On the other, I don't want to prohibit it without reason either.
> 
> Section 8.8.5 is the critical text here.
> Taken literally, this section says that <url> as
> a target for <edit-config> must be supported,
> but the target should be a local file.

It says (8.8.5.1) that <url> must be accepted as an alternative to
<config>, i.e. as the "source" of the edit-config command.  And it
must be a local file (for some reason).  The <target> parameter cannot
be an url.





/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/>