Subject: Notification XSD Bugs (2nd try)

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 07:53:11 -0700

Hi,

Here is the XSD snippet from RFC 4741 for the <rpc> element:

     <!--
       <rpc> element
       -->
     <xs:complexType name="rpcType">
       <xs:sequence>
         <xs:element ref="rpcOperation"/>
       </xs:sequence>
       <xs:attribute name="message-id" type="messageIdType"
         use="required"/>
       <!--
         Arbitrary attributes can be supplied with <rpc> element.
       -->
       <xs:anyAttribute processContents="lax"/>
     </xs:complexType>
     <xs:element name="rpc" type="rpcType"/>

     <!--
       rpcOperationType: used as a base type for all
       NETCONF operations
       -->
     <xs:complexType name="rpcOperationType"/>
     <xs:element name="rpcOperation"
                 type="rpcOperationType" abstract="true"/>

As I pointed out in my email on May 4th, the <notification>
XSD definition MUST be in the same form as the <rpc> element,
in order to support 'substitutionGroup' replacement of the
one abstract element (ala 'rpcOperation'). 

The form of a NETCONF notification is:

 <notification>
   <specificNotificationType>
     <specificNotificationContentNode>*
   </specificNotificationType>
 </notification>

There must be an abstract element (only child of <notification>)
to specify the 'specificNotificationType' node.

The notification contents are defined by the specific notification type,
just as the RPC parameters are defined by the specific RPC operation.
The <rpc> template is the correct one to use, not <rpc-reply>.

Andy

--
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/>