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

["Mark Scott" <markscot at nortel.com>]

Martin and Andy,

Agreed we can make <format> and <version> optional so long as the server
returns an error if more than one entry exists with the same
<identifier>.

The revised <get-schema> negative responses (sec 3.1) proposed:
	If requested schema does not exist, the <error-tag> is
'invalid-value'.
	If requested schema is not unique, the <error-tag> is
'operation-failed' and the <error-app-tag> is 'data-not-unique'.

Default <format> of YANG is also specified in sec 3.1, and example 2b is
updated to show default of YANG when format not specified.

and the revised RPC definition proposed:
	rpc get-schema {
	    description
      	  "When the schema is available on the device this operation is
	         used to return it via NETCONF.  If requested schema
does not exist,
               the <error-tag> is 'invalid-value'.  If requested schema
is not unique,
               the <error-tag> is 'operation-failed' and the
<error-app-tag> is
		   'data-not-unique'.";
	    input {
	      leaf identifier {
      	  type string;
	        mandatory true;
	      }
      	leaf version {
	        type string;
	      }
      	leaf format {
	        type identityref {
      	    base schema-format;
	        }
	      }
	    }
	    output {
	      anyxml data {
	        description "Contains the schema content.";
	      }
	    }

These updates will be made in v-09 update.  Any comments or concerns
please raise them.  

cheers,
Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Bjorklund [mailto:mbj at tail-f.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 6:23 AM
To: mehmet.ersue at nsn.com
Cc: andy at netconfcentral.com; Scott, Mark (CAR:2N00); netconf at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Netconf] [NETCONF] <get-schema> mandatory parms discussion

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

I agree with Andy, i.e. <format> and <version> should be optional.  I
think Mark's concern that the client might get a schema it didn't
intended is covered by saying that if there are more than one schema
with the given <identifier>, an error is returned.  In this case the
client must give all parameters.


/martin