Re: <validate> operation somewhat broken

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

Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com> wrote:
> Andy Bierman wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > IMO, the <validate> command is not actually useful for 'inline'
> > configuration validation.
> > 
> 
> I think the WG should decide what to do about this problem:
> 
>     1) Ignore it
>     2) Document it
>     3) Fix it
> 
> IMO, the proper engineering fix requires 2 independent changes:
> 
>   1) Add a 'test-only' enumeration to the (edit-config) test-option
>      parameter.  (Remember that this entire parameter is only supported
>      if the :validate capability is supported. This change could
>      be done as a validate-2.0 capability, and not change the 1.0 capability.

I think this would be a very useful enhancement.

>   2) Remove configInlineType as one of the options for the 'source'
>      parameter in the validate operation. (Make it the same data type
>      as the getConfig source parameter).

That means that you could only <validate> the 'candidate', 'running'
or 'startup'?  I think this would be fine, b/c test-only is a much
more useful operation.  [side note: does it make sense to validate
'running'?]


/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/>