RE: Netconf operation definitions

["Rob Enns" <rpe@juniper.net>]

Thanks for the comments Hector. 

> 1) The current get-config definition for source says:
> 
> "source:
> 
>          Name of the configuration datastore being queried, such as
>          <running/>.  If this element is unspecified, the <running/>
>          configuration is used."
> 
> The definition for get-config the XSD includes element source 
> which is 
> of type rpcOperationSourceType. One of the choices is 
> "config" which is 
> config-inlineType
> 
>      <xs:complexType name="rpcOperationSourceType">
>        <xs:choice>
>          <xs:element ref="config"/>
>          <xs:element ref="config-name"/>
>          <xs:element ref="url"/>
>        </xs:choice>
>      </xs:complexType>
> 
> My suggestion would be for the XSD definition to be modified to not 
> allow this  since a definition change can be made to enforce what the 
> text says.

Yep, take a look back in the archive for the subject "What happened
to the <format> parameter on <get-config>" for more discussion on this.
We need rpcOperationSourceType to remain the same since it's used
by copy-config, but we should use a different type for get-config. 


> 2) rpc element description. I think this was already brought 
> up but just 
> to make sure it's captured
> 
> "If additional attributes are present in an <rpc> element, a NETCONF
>    peer must return them unmodified in the <rpc-reply> element."
> 
> The XSD does not include definitions for additional attributes

Thanks, is fixed in -06 based on some XSD supplied by Steve Berl.


> Slightly out of subject but related to XSDs
> 
> 3) Naming conventions
> There seems to be two different naming conventions followed 
> in the XSD 
> (for first word first letter is lower case then use upper 
> case for first 
> letter of sub-sequent words - rpcOperationSourceType) and 
> also dash "-" 
> separated words (config-inlineType and get-config)
> 
> For consistency purposes it may be good if one of the naming 
> conventions 
> was followed instead of inter-mixing. The former?

This bugs me too, and in the NETCONF RNG schema (which won't
be in the draft/rfc) a common approach was used. I'll make the
naming in the XSD consistent. FWIW I believe the original
approach was to use dashes for the NETCONF names (get-config)
and the lower/upper case style for type names. Picking one
(lower/upper case sounds fine to me) makes sense.

Rob

--
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/>