[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: message-id attribute issues

Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:


On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 02:37:05AM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote:


CLR? ;-) Seriously, I think implementors may find creative things
to do with message-id, and 255 could be a bit short. Every
implementation
will have a practical limit on the messages that can be received; do you
think we should limit it in the spec?

Right now we have a limit -- it's 65535.
If your agent doesn't accept a message-id attribute this big, it is broken.

(Imagine that some company like IWL is going to write a test suite
to test every one of these limits and tell your customers every place your
agent is broken.)


What about distinguishing between the upper limits as expressed in the
XSD and implementation "conformance" requirements?  I believe
xsd:string is just fine wrt. the upper limit. If people feel strongly
that there should be a smaller minimum implementation requirement,
then lets define these things as part of an applicability statement or
as implementation guidelines. The point is to not hardwire arbitrary
choices if we do not have to.



Let's make conscious decisions about the protocol.
This upper limit for the manager is the lower limit for the agent.
If the manager is allowed to send it then the agent MUST accept it.
I don't know what this idea of a smaller implementation requirement
is supposed to mean.  Please explain.



/js



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/>