Re: Proposed Resolution to PROT I-D Issues List

[Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com>]

Steven Berl (sberl) wrote:

> <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.
> >    
I think we should make the text normative and the XSD as correct as 
possible,
but not intended to override the text.  The exact standard netconf XSD that
an agent should accept is different depending on the exact set of capability
values supported by that agent for a particular session.

The XSD represents a superset of all base + standard capability variants.
I think this is good enough.


Andy

> >    
>
> 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/>
>
>
>  


--
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/>