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

Re: Notification #9: replay in the future consensus point



Balazs Lengyel wrote:
Hello,
As we see it 'eventClass', 'eventSeverity','eventTime' and 'eventSender' are not meta-data but real data, they are essential and mandatory parts of every notification. I would really prefer them as elements instead of attributes. I can even foresee someone extending eventClass with a vendor specific evntSubClass.

Think about this statement.
If a vendor was to extend the standard definitions,
they would no longer be standard.  From an XML-PoV, these
extensions belong in the standard or vendor-defined <eventType>,
in a different namespace.

The value of 'fixed' standard fields is that they are fixed,
and a manager can count on them meaning what they are supposed to mean
across all agent implementations.


Andy

On the other hand extensibility is good, so an anyAttribute does no harm.
Balazs

Andy Bierman wrote:

The 'eventClass', 'eventSeverity', and 'eventTime' fields
are meta-data which could be encoded as XML attributes
in the <notification> element.  This should be
required, even if the proprietary <eventType> has
some or all of these fields already.

This is why I keep asking the WG:
Are you SURE you want to forbid all XML attributes, forever,
from being included in the <notification> element?

Are you SURE this is not going to ever come up again
as an issue, because this is the only place we can
really put inter-operable meta-data into the notification message?

(All we need is an 'anyAttribute' clause in the <element>
definition...)






--
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/>