Re: Proposed Resolution to PROT I-D Issues List

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

Hi -

> From: "Hector Trevino" <htrevino@cisco.com>
> To: "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>
> Cc: "Andy Bierman" <ietf@andybierman.com>; <sberl@cisco.com>; "'Wes Hardaker'" <wjhns1@hardakers.net>; "'Andy Bierman'"
<abierman@cisco.com>; <netconf@ops.ietf.org>
> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 9:55 AM
> Subject: Re: Proposed Resolution to PROT I-D Issues List
...
>  I agree that with he current definitions this is the case but seems to
> me they could be tighten up so that they enforce validity of the message
> (syntactically).
> Or is there something else I'm missing here?
...

The point is that there is more to a protocol than syntax.
There are constraints on the validity of a message that
cannot be enforced by syntactic means alone.

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/>