Subject: Re: [Netconf] AD review for draft-ietf-netconf-tls-06.txt

From: "tom.petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:36:39 +0100

---- Original Message -----
From: "Ladislav Lhotka" <[email-masked]>
To: "Phil Shafer" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 9:31 AM
Subject: Re: [Netconf] AD review for draft-ietf-netconf-tls-06.txt

> Phil Shafer píše v St 11. 02. 2009 v 15:56 -0500:
> > Ladislav Lhotka writes:
> > >A processing instruction, e.g., <?NETCONF:EOM?>, would be a cleaner way
> > >to achieve the same and the low-level code wouldn't have to parse XML
> > >either.
> >
> > A PI has the same issues (ie. put it in a CDATA).  Without a real
> > framing protocol, there's no way to avoid parsing XML as XML.
>
> Agreed. I found an interesting thread back from 2004 starting with
> Andy's message
>
> http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/netconf.2004/msg00158.html
>
> where the various EOM approaches were nicely discussed. I wasn't able to
> find though why the ']]>]]>' marker was eventually selected.
>

>From the department of useless information:

The minutes of IETF59 s5.1 show the consensus of the room as being that
" ]]>]]> shall be used "
 as being something that cannot appear in CDATA

Tom Petch

> Lada
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> >  Phil
> --
> Ladislav Lhotka, CESNET
> PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C
>
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>