Subject: impending publication of the NETCONF BEEP mapping - one final concern

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 11:32:45 +0100

Dear all,

After last call, a concern was raised regarding the NETCONF / BEEP 
application mapping that is due to be released, relating to the lack of 
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> in the <hello> message.  I would 
like to clarify why this is the case on the mailing list, and I will 
clarify this in the netconf-beep mapping.

Section 6.4 of RFC 3080 registers the MIME subtype 
application/beep+xml.  That registration specifically specifies two 
restrictions, relating to the XML:

      First, no entity references other than the five predefined general
      entities references ("&amp;", "&lt;", "&gt;", "&apos;", and
      "&quot;") and numeric entity references may be present.

      Second, neither the "XML" declaration (e.g., <?xml version="1.0"
      ?>) nor the "DOCTYPE" declaration (e.g., <!DOCTYPE ...>) may be
      present.  (Accordingly, if another character set other than UTF-8
      is desired, then the "charset" parameter must be present.)

For this reason the example listed in draft-ietf-netconf-beep-10.txt 
varies from that listed in draft-ietf-netconf-ssh-06.txt (amongst other 
ways).

Regards,

Eliot

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>

---

From: Phil Shafer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 10:52:29 -0500

>varies from that listed in draft-ietf-netconf-ssh-06.txt (amongst other 

Can we (pretty please) add the same restrictions to ssh?

Thanks,
 Phil

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 09:42:52 -0800

> varies from that listed in draft-ietf-netconf-ssh-06.txt (amongst other 

I do not see any objection to these proposed edits.
Here goes one...

I do not like the concept of <edit-config> or other RPCs working fine
if the manager connects to port 830, but doesn't work at all on port 831,
because a "different" subset of XML is supported.

I do not see any objections to applying these restrictions to the
entire protocol, regardless of transport protocol.  Is there any
reason NETCONF implementations could not be constrained in this manner?
(IMO, the character entity set is English-centric and not very useful
for documentation strings in other languages.  This will be a problem
someday.)

Also, these clarifications need to be in the protocol spec,
not the NETCONF over BEEP spec.  They need to apply to the
protocol regardless of the transport layer being used.

Andy

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 11:00:20 +0100

Dear Colleagues,

Based on comments received from the message below, it's been suggested 
that a different change occur to the NETCONF-BEEP draft.  Instead of 
NETCONF messages being transmitted in text/xml instead of 
application/beep+xml.  I have no objection to such a change as it would 
bring it in line with the other drafts.  This amounts to the following 
draft changes in the document:

In Section 2.2, insert the following paragraph:

OLD:

   At this point, we are ready to proceed on BEEP channel 1 with NETCONF
   operations.

NEW:

   At this point, we are ready to proceed on BEEP channel 1 with NETCONF
   operations.

   NETCONF messages are transmitted with a Content-type header set to
   "text/xml".

In the example below it:

OLD:

       A: MSG 1 0 . 0 429
       A: Content-type: application/beep+xml
       A:

NEW:

       A: MSG 1 0 . 0 457
       A: Content-type: text/xml
       A:
       A: <?xml version='1.0' encoding="UTF-8"?>

In section Section 2.2 REMOVE the following paragraph:

OLD:

      Please note in the above example an absence of an XML declaration
      (e.g., <?XML version=1.0?>).  This necessary variance from the other
      NETCONF mappings is in accordance with Section 6.4 of [7].

Are there objections to these changes?

Eliot

Eliot Lear wrote:
> application mapping that is due to be released, relating to the lack 
> of <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> in the <hello> message.  I 
> would like to clarify why this is the case on the mailing list, and I 
> will clarify this in the netconf-beep mapping.
>
> varies from that listed in draft-ietf-netconf-ssh-06.txt (amongst 
> other ways).
>
> Regards,
>
> Eliot
>
> --