[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: abstract=true



Sorry, I should've read the document more carefully... I'm guessing now that "data" refers to the return reply from a <get>. This brings up another question, though - should the schema for NETCONF state be used in place of "data?" The schema for NETCONF state doesn't seem to fit the NETCONF schema model too well. According to the examples, it seems like the NETCONF schema would want to fit something like:
<xs:complexType name="rpc-replyType">
<xs:choice>
<xs:element name="ok" minOccurs="0"/>
<xs:element name="rpc-error" type="rpc-errorType" minOccurs="0"/>
<xs:element ref="config" minOccurs="0"/>
<xs:element name="data" type="xs:anyType" minOccurs="0"/>
</xs:choice>
<xs:attribute name="message-id" type="xs:string" use="required"/>
</xs:complexType>
NETCONF state schema looks like it describes some parts of the reply for a <get> request, but I'm not too sure if this is something that should be sent back everytime a <get> request is answered (the <netconf-state> element). Is the NETCONF state schema something "to be completed" in the future, or is it something that should be implemented as part of a NETCONF message?


Lewis


Lewis Denizen wrote:


Hi,

Sorry for being buggy - just one last question... The line that starts with:
<xs:element ref="data" minOccurs="0"/>
which is embedded within "rpc-replyType" (roughly around line 70 when pretty-printed) doesn't reference to an element inside the Netconf schema. Was this "data" element created to allow future expansion on RPC replies? Or, is this just a small mistake in the XML schema? Thanks again :)


Lewis


Rob Enns wrote:


No problems, I had to look it up myself to be sure! :-)
FWIW I've been using XMLSpy under windows to double check
correctness of the XSD.

Rob

On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 10:46:59AM +0900, Lewis Denizen wrote:

Hi,

Oops sorry, I guess I missed that in the previous drafts. It does seem to be there... I'm probably going to have to switch parsers/validators to see which work best. Thanks for correcting me :)

Lewis

Rob Enns wrote:

Hi,
The abstract="true" attribute indicates that the type is
an abstract type and can't be instantiated directly. It's
a standard XSD attribute and it's been in the NETCONF XSD
since the -00 draft. What are changes in the schema
that you're concerned about? The only changes made in -03
were to update the schema to match changes in the protocol
itself (modulo bugs of course :-)).
One bug I've found in the -03 XSD is that the error-info
element's type should be "xs:anyType" rather than "xs:any".

Rob



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lewis Denizen
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 12:30 AM
To: Netconf
Subject: abstract=true


Hi all,

Looking through the new Netconf XML Schema, I saw a lot of reference to the abstract="true" attribute for elements. Is this a W3C approved attribute, or is it more of a "customized" attribute? I didn't see W3C mentioning about an abstract attribute... Also, a lot of standards-conforming libraries seem to have trouble understanding the "abstract" attribute. Any reason why the model changed from Draft2? Thanks in advance!

Lewis



--
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/>












-- 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/>