in-line Hector
Andy Bierman wrote:
Steven Berl (sberl) wrote:
I think we should make the text normative and the XSD as correct as possible,
<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.
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/>
-- 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/>