Re: is a warning really an error?

[Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com>]

Kent Watsen wrote:
> > I think you are reading the document too literally.
>
> Yes, I tend to read specifications that way  ;^)
>
>
> > You can add this to the issue tracker for RFC 4741 if you want.
>
> I will add all of these items to the issue tracker
>
>
> > Clearly you have figured out that data-model dependent error handling
> > for the NETCONF protocol is largely undefined in RFC 4741.
> > This is partly by design, and partly because NETCONF data modeling
> > is largely undefined.
>
> I don't see this as being dependent on the data-model as I'm only caring
> if the target datastore was modified on not

The partial-operation error-tag is intended to provide this information.
if any <ok-element> values are returned, then the target was modified.
Partial-operation is intended to be included in addition to the primary
error-tag report(s).

> > (Insert plug here for draft-bierman-ncx-smi-00.txt ;-)
>
> Ever so subtle!  ;)
>
>
> Best,
> Kent


Andy

--
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/>