Re: Proposed Resolution to PROT I-D Issues List

["Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>]

Hi -

> From: "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>
> To: <sberl@cisco.com>; "'Wes Hardaker'" <wjhns1@hardakers.net>; "'Andy Bierman'" <abierman@cisco.com>
> Cc: <netconf@ops.ietf.org>
> Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 10:54 AM
> Subject: RE: Proposed Resolution to PROT I-D Issues List
...
> I agree that the XML Schema should be normative and that
> the body text should say that a received message that does
> not parse _perfectly_ under the XML Schema is corrupt and
> should be subject to some appropriate error handling (but
> never quietly accepted).

I'm inclined to agree, but we should be mindful of
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/pseudo-code-in-specs.txt
which gives primacy to the English text.

> Reconfiguration of network systems is not a use case for
> "close enough for rock and roll".
...

Agreed, and let's not lose sight of the point of the passage Steve
Berl cited:

...
> > Implementations MUST NOT assume that an incoming message is
> > free from malicious intent because it has been successfully
> > verified against this schema.
...

Simply passing XML validation does not guarantee that the message is
benign.

Randy



--
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/>