RE: Proposed Resolution to PROT I-D Issues List

["Steven Berl \(sberl\)" <sberl@cisco.com>]

<snip>

> ----------------------
> 
> New text for the beginning of appendix B:
> 
> The following XML schema is for informational purposes.  It 
> has reviewed but there is no guarantee that the schema 
> exactly matches the definitions defined in the protocol 
> description above.
> Implementations MUST NOT assume that an incoming message is 
> free from malicious intent because it has been successfully 
> verified against this schema.
> 

Are you saying that we have a formal language description of the syntax of
the protocol messages, but that is there just for information? The real
definition of the syntax is in the narrative text? It seems to me that this
is kind of backwards. Is this the way that MIBs work? Is the ASN.1 there
just for information and the real description of the MIB is in the text? The
normative reference for message syntax should be the schema, and the text
should be there to describe the schema, and to explain things that are not
expressed in the schema such as the sequence of messages, or additional
constrains.

-steve

--
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/>