Re: Issue 5.1) SSH End of message directive

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>]

>>>>> Tim Stoddard writes:

Tim> To a single parser I concede there is no difference between
Tim> <?EOM?> and <?Netconf_EOM?>, however if there are cases where
Tim> other delimiters are involved in the framing I think <?EOM?> is
Tim> quite generic and a way to alleviate that situation is to be
Tim> specific with the <?Netconf_EOM?> delimiter.

Not sure I see this problem. The sending netconf engine inserts
<?EOM?> at the end of a netconf message and the receiving engine
eats the <?EOM?> to separate out the message again. This is the
netconf framing - so in which situation should there be another
framing that causes problems?

The only realisitc issue I see is that some netconf messages might
contain <?EOM?> in a CDATA portion of the payload. So if we look for a
better <?EOM?>, than it should be something that is kind of illegal in
XML, regardless where it appears in an XML document. Not sure this
exists (probably requires some careful study of the XML specs), but
this would for me be a real improvement.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany



--
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/>