Re: netconf update

["tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com>]

<inline>
Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sharon Chisholm" <schishol@nortel.com>
To: "Netconf (E-mail)" <netconf@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 7:24 PM
Subject: RE: netconf updatei

It must be well-formed XML. I had been thinking that this was covered,
but since we are not re-using rpc messaging for Notifications anymore, I
guess we need to explicitly state it. I don't think we can make any more
specific claims in this document, but certain can in data model related
ones.

Sharon

<tp>

What I am wrestling with, after reading the SIP RFC you pointed us at, is the
idea that the document must be well-formed XML, that filters may have removed
mandatory elements and that the 'principal' may not be authorised to view a
mandatory element.  I am not sure how this can be resolved.

eg suppose <user> has minoccurs="1" maxoccurs="1" for each of the elements
<name>
<department>
<securityCredentialType>
of which the last has very restricted access.  I can envisage either access
restrictions forcing a document not to conform to its Schema or multiple
document definitions to allow for different combinations of access rights to
different combinations of the elements, both of which seem unattractive.

I think that this is a generic consideration, not one that should be left to
individual data models, even if all we can say is that the data models should
consider it.

In SNMP, I do not see the issue arising because access rights win and there is
no concept of a well-formed document to be in conflict with.  Ditto syslog.

Tom Petch

-----Original Message-----
From: tom.petch [mailto:cfinss@dial.pipex.com]
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 3:27 PM
To: Chisholm, Sharon (CAR:ZZ00); Netconf (E-mail)
Subject: Re: netconf update

Sharon

MUST the event be properly formed XML?  I imagine it must but do not see
that explicitly spelt out in the I-D.  Equally, MUST there be a DTD or
Schema for an event?

Tom Petch


----- Original Message -----
From: "Sharon Chisholm" <schishol@nortel.com>
To: "Netconf (E-mail)" <netconf@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 3:54 PM
Subject: RE: netconf update


Hi

The edit is basically ready. I just want to give the issue list a chance
to air and verify that there are not any new comments that need to be
addressed. We'll probably send it in on Monday.

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Phil Shafer
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 11:23 AM
To: Andy Bierman
Cc: Netconf (E-mail)
Subject: Re: netconf update

Andy Bierman writes:
> 1) The authors are working on a new version of the Notifications
draft.

Any estimate on when the new version will be out?

Thanks,
 Phil

--
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/>