RE: Proposed Resolution to PROT I-D Issues List

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

I would like to see text in the document that says something like:

Any message that is not valid with respect to the XML schema in appendix B,
is not a valid netconf message and MUST be rejected by the netconf server
that receives it. In the <rpc-reply> the <error-severity> MUST be set to
"error" and the <error-tag> MUST contain one of INVALID_VALUE,
MISSING_ATTRIBUTE, BAD_ATTRIBUTE, UNKNOWN_ATTRIBUTE, MISSING_ELEMENT,
BAD_ELEMENT, or UNKNOWN_ELEMENT.

-steve 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andy Bierman
> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 4:48 PM
> To: McDonald, Ira
> Cc: 'Randy Presuhn'; netconf@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Proposed Resolution to PROT I-D Issues List
> 
> McDonald, Ira wrote:
> 
> >Hi,
> >
> >It would be nice if there were some agreement in this advice.
> >
> >Randy says the XSD *is* normative, but the plaintext wins in 
> conflicts 
> >(which Joel says is not true under the prevailing IESG 
> policy, because 
> >nothing but plaintext can be normative).
> >
> >Joel says the IESG doesn't bother much about labelling parts of RFCs 
> >normative or informative (the RFC Editor certainly doesn't 
> agree with 
> >this one - a number of RFC's and I-Ds on proper RFC style 
> address which 
> >body parts and appendices are or should be normative).
> >
> >I liked Steve's formulation very much, but it's broken by the 
> >"plaintext always wins" rule.  An incoming message could 
> _fail_ the XSD 
> >check and still be valid under ambiguously written plaintext body 
> >parts...
> >  
> >
> Are there specific portions of text that you are making 
> objections or suggestions
> for changes?   We aren't going to change IESG policy on this mailing 
> list.  Unless
> there are specific changes to the -05 draft to discuss here, 
> I think this topic is closed.
> 
> >Cheers,
> >- Ira
> >  
> >
> Andy
> 
> >Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect) Blue Roof Music / High 
> >North Inc PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI  49839
> >phone: +1-906-494-2434
> >email: imcdonald@sharplabs.com
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org]On
> >Behalf Of Randy Presuhn
> >Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 1:36 PM
> >To: netconf@ops.ietf.org
> >Subject: Re: Proposed Resolution to PROT I-D Issues List
> >
> >
> >Hi -
> >
> >  
> >
> >>From: "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>
> >>To: "'Joel M. Halpern'" <joel@stevecrocker.com>; "'Wes Hardaker'"
> >>    
> >>
> ><wjhns1@hardakers.net>; <sberl@cisco.com>
> >  
> >
> >>Cc: "'Andy Bierman'" <abierman@cisco.com>; <netconf@ops.ietf.org>
> >>Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 5:27 AM
> >>Subject: RE: Proposed Resolution to PROT I-D Issues List
> >>    
> >>
> >...
> >  
> >
> >>Joel, Randy, Wes, et al - could you please explain to this list how 
> >>XSD is useful in NetConf if it's not Normative?
> >>    
> >>
> >...
> >
> >It *is* normative.  It's just that in the case of conflict or 
> >ambiguity, the English takes precedence.  This is as it 
> should be.  I 
> >recall fixing errors in ASN.1 and MIB modules, where the fix was 
> >justified by the fact that the English text captured the WG 
> intent and 
> >the formal notation said something else.  This routinely 
> happens during 
> >MIB review cycles.
> >
> >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/>
> >
> >--
> >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/>