Re: Proposed Resolution to PROT I-D Issues List

[Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com>]

Steven Berl (sberl) wrote:

>  
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andy Bierman [mailto:ietf@andybierman.com] 
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 9:43 AM
> > To: sberl@cisco.com
> > Cc: netconf@ops.ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: Proposed Resolution to PROT I-D Issues List
> >
> > Steven Berl (sberl) wrote:
> >
> >    
> >
> > > After a little more thought, the list of <error-tag> values 
> > >      
> > needs to be 
> >    
> >
> > > more open ended. Can we just leave out that list. Here's some new 
> > > replacement
> > > text:
> > >
> > > 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 an error code indicating the reason for rejecting 
> > >      
> > the message.
> >    
> >
> > >      
> > I strongly object to this proposal to remove the standard 
> > errors from NETCONF.
> > There are plenty of ways for vendors to add their own error 
> > information if they want.
> >    
>
> I think you misunderstood what I was proposing. I am not suggesting to
> remove the errors from NETCONF. I am just suggesting that we not be too
> specific about which subset of those errors are allowed to be returned in
> this particular error situation (XML not valid with respect to the schema). 
>
> The reason I want to leave this clause out is that the list I sent in the
> original proposed replacement text 1) doesn't cover all cases where the XML
> is not valid, and 2) the granularity of how specific the error which can be
> reported will depend on the details of the implementations XML parser.
>  
Okay.  I thought you wanted to remove the error list appendix.
I'm not clear about the exact text you want to replace.

As per my previous email on multiple rpc-errors, I am not
that concerned that every agent process messages and return
errors in exactly the same manner.  I want to avoid implementation
specification in the standard.  The important thing is that it is
clear in the standard what constitutes valid and invalid messages.

Do you think we need any special error codes for namespaces?
(e.g., MISSING_NAMESPACE, UNKNOWN_NAMESPACE)

> -steve
>  
Andy



--
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/>