Re: [Netconf] [NETCONF] <get-schema> mandatory parms discussion

["Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" <mehmet.ersue at nsn.com>]

Hi Mark, Andy, 

modifying the the mandatory parameters in <get-schema> 
has been proposed earlier in September. There were no 
arguments against it at that time.

In the sake of progress I would like to ask you to try 
to converge on a solution.
OTHERS: PLEASE speak up if you agree or disagree with 
any points made by either Mark or Andy.

It would be good if we can bring this to a conclusion 
and the draft one step further soon.

Cheers,
Mehmet
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: netconf-bounces at ietf.org 
> [mailto:netconf-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Andy Bierman
> Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 2:13 AM
> To: Mark Scott
> Cc: netconf at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Netconf] [NETCONF] <get-schema> mandatory parms 
> discussion
> 
> Mark Scott wrote:
> > Andy,
> > 
> > A rationale for not modifying the mandatory parameters in 
> <get-schema>
> > was posted to the ML on Sept 16th.
> > 
> > I suspect you missed that based on the comment below so I 
> am repeating
> > it here for further discussion:
> > 
> > 	"2.  <get-schema> mandatory parameters:  Initially <identifier>
> > was the only mandatory parameter in the <get-schema> 
> operation, however
> > after we agreed to expand the key definition in the schema 
> list we made
> > <version> and <format> mandatory parameters in the operation.  My
> > preference would be to keep this alignment between the key and
> > <get-schema> mandatory parms.  I agree in cases where only 
> 1 revision
> > and/or 1 format exists this is heavy-handed but it protects against
> > agents returning schema a manager may not have intended since
> > <identifier> is not unique in schema list and the logic on agent to
> > select the default revision may differ from what the 
> manager would have
> > selected (esp. if more than 1 version exists)."
> > 
> > Previously no one else had objected to these being 
> mandatory parameters
> > and no ML consensus had been reached to modify it.
> > 
> 
> I don't understand why the <get-schema> RPC
> is coupled to the /netconf-state/schemas data structure.
> 
> Revisions are optional in YANG.  A valid module
> can exist without a <version>.  This module forces
> a YANG module to use the empty string as the
> version, which is somewhat of a hack.
> 
> 
> > I have changed the subject header of this email in an attempt to
> > initiate a ML discussion and will update the draft based on 
> consensus.
> > 
> > Mark
> >
> 
> Andy
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> Netconf at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>