Re: subtree filter spec vs. implementation

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

Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com> wrote:
> > This is bad news.  Can we issue an errata for a spec?
> 
> I hope so.
> We need to agree on the text.
> I searched some old drafts and could not find my
> original sentence regarding removal of dead-end sub-trees.
> 
> FWIW, I think it is about the same amount of work
> to implement subtree filtering either way.

This is very subjective of course, but I think the current spec is
easier to implement.  The reason is that when a containment node is
found in the filter, the code can directly write the node to the
output stream if it exists.  With the proposed change, the code would
have to buffer more.  With the current spec, max one level of
buffering is needed (for content match nodes).  No rocket science of
course.


/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/>