Re: our first CLR

[Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com>]

Balazs Lengyel wrote:
> I am fighting to be able to send late replies to operations. The most 
> likely method to do this will be a notification that refers to the 
> original operation. To be able to refer to it we need the sessionId and 
> the messageId. So Ericsson is in an immediate need of the messageId.

But you can put any attribute you want in the <rpc> header and it
will get returned to you.  There's no point in the agent blindly
rejecting a PDU just because this 'message-id' attribute is missing.


> Balazs

Andy

> Andy Bierman wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Didn't anybody notice that the protocol spec makes a big
> > deal about a mandatory message-id (and I made a big deal
> > about limiting its length), but it isn't used anywhere
> > in the document in a normative manner?
> >
> > Nope.  We took out the only operation that depended on
> > the message-id attribute a couple years ago.
> > The agent totally ignores this attribute except to
> > check if needs to generate an error if it is missing.
> >
> > If that isn't the essence of a Crappy Little Rule,
> > I don't know what is.  (I know, we may need the
> > message-id someday, but not now.)
> >
> >
> > 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/>


--
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/>