Subject: [netmod] E.2 and E.3 error-path

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:57:35 -0700

Hi,

Clearly, 1 of these errors is sent for the entire error
when min-elements is not reached.  For example, if container
'foo' had a list 'bar' with min-elements == 3, then 1 error is
sent with error-path == "/f:foo/f:bar".

Not as obvious is that 1 error is also sent if max-elements
is exceeded, also with the parent node as the error-path.

If list 'bar' had a leaf-list 'baz' with a min or max violation,
then one would expect the instance identifier of the 'bar'
entry to also be in the error-path:

    "/f:foo/f:bar[f:name='fred']/f:baz"

I think the error-path should be specified in E.2 and E.3.

Andy

_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

---

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 22:33:51 +0200 (CEST)

> I think the error-path should be specified in E.2 and E.3.

Just in these two?  I started to add:

  Error-path:     Identifies the list or leaf-list with the
                  max-elements constraint.

But I'm not sure it actually adds any value to the definition of
error-path in rfc 4741:

  error-path: Contains the absolute XPath [2] expression identifying
      the element path to the node that is associated with the error
      being reported in a particular rpc-error element.

If you had something particular in mind, could you propse some text to
add?

/martin

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:41:07 -0700

> If you had something particular in mind, could you propse some text to

I think just a sentence in E.2 that only one error per parent/child
combination is generated, not an error for every extra child.

Andy

---

From: David Partain <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:01:11 +0200

Hi all,

> combination is generated, not an error for every extra child.

Seems good to me...

David