Re: [netmod] operational knobs

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca at avaya.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: netmod-bounces at ietf.org 
> [mailto:netmod-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Juergen Schoenwaelder
> Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 10:52 AM
> To: Randy Presuhn
> Cc: NETMOD Working Group
> Subject: Re: [netmod] operational knobs
> 
> On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 06:50:26AM +0100, Randy Presuhn wrote:
> > Hi -
> > 
> > > From: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" 
> <j.schoenwaelder at jacobs-university.de>
> > > To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>
> > > Cc: "NETMOD Working Group" <netmod at ietf.org>
> > > Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2009 10:36 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [netmod] operational knobs
> > ...
> > > This is really off topic, but RFC 1157, RFC 1901, and RFC 
> 3412 all 
> > > use "ANY -- e.g., PDUs". Yes, it is not ANY DEFINED BY 
> but if people 
> > > would have wanted to add create/delete operations, the 
> grammar would 
> > > not have been the show stopper.
> > 
> > The "ANY" in the envelope was just a hack to allow an 
> encrypted payload.
> > The elements of procedure require it to be treated as a 
> parse error if 
> > it doesn't match the grammar for "PDUs".  Putting anything 
> else there 
> > would still require it to be treated as a new protocol version.
> 
> Yes, because the WG did choose to forbit this sort of 
> extension and this was a political decision, not a grammar problem.
> 
> /js
> 

It was a political decision which resulted in parsing errors :-) 

Dan