Re: url clarification

[Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>]

Hi,


Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com> wrote:
> Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> >
> > It says (8.8.5.1) that <url> must be accepted as an alternative to
> > <config>, i.e. as the "source" of the edit-config command.  And it
> > must be a local file (for some reason).  The <target> parameter cannot
> > be an url.
> >
> >   
> 
> oops -- you're right.
> 
> So the text is right and the XSD is wrong.
> The "rpcOperationTargetType" needs to be changed
> to "configNameType" for edit-config, lock, and unlock.
> End of problem.

I still think that allowing a url as "source" to <edit-config> is a
problem, or at least quite limited.  If it has to be a local file (as
it is now), this file must be created somehow.  D.1.2 shows an example
where the file is created by doing a <copy-config> to the file.  Then
in D.1.5 the file is used in <edit-config>.  This is a "type-mismatch"
problem.  The <config> parameter of <copy-config> is a "complete
configuration datastore", but the <config> parameter of <edit-config>
is not - it's "all or part" of a configuration.

So maybe copy-config to a file is just a dumb verbatim copy?

Then in D.1.3, the incoming file (the "all or part" of a
configuration), is validated.  Is this supposed to work?  I.e. is
validate really supposed to validate anything that can be sent to
<edit-config>?


/martin



--
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/>