Re: nested operation attribute interoperability

[Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com>]

Phil Shafer wrote:
> Andy Bierman writes:
> >           *** IMO, the 2nd sentence above is wrong. ***
> > I do not remember ever changing the definition of replace
> > to cause an error like delete.  I remember the opposite.
>
> This is my memory as well, and I concur that the 2nd sentence
> is wrong.

Here is an 'operational sniff test':

Let's say I want to delete all the <user> entries,
but I don't want to remove the <users> container.
Otherwise the purpose of the container is lost.
(OK -- I would probably not really be deleting the user table ;-)

The default-operation parameter for the <edit-config> operation
is set to 'none', although any value actually works in
this example.

1) This causes an error if <users> is already empty

   <users>
      <user operation="delete"/>
   </users>

2) This does not cause an error if <users> is already empty
   and it is simpler to encode:

   <users operation="replace"/>

Both mechanisms should be supported, and they are if 'replace'
is interpreted as originally intended.


> Thanks,
>  Phil

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/>