Subject: Re: [Netconf] 4741bis - validate

From: Balazs Lengyel <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 10:02:11 +0200

test-only should be included, so 2 or 3 is my vote.
Balazs

Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> This is the first of a couple of emails identifying some open issues
> for 4741 bis.  I will do more some other day.
> 
> 
> The problem is that it is unclear if <validate> with inline config
> must be a complete config or some kind of "partial" config.  As has
> been discussed earlier on the list and most recently in S.F., the way
> it is defined, it must be a complete config.
> 
> A related problem is that inline validation of a complete config is
> not very useful in real life (see
> e.g. http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/netconf.2006/msg01229.html).
> 
> Because of this, some implementations support a 'test-only' option to
> edit-config
> (http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/netconf.2006/msg01206.html), which
> can be used to validate partial edits to a given data store.
> 
> There are a couple of alternatives:
> 
>   1.  Keep :validate 1.0 as it is, and clarify that inline config must be
>       a complete config.
> 
>   2.  As 1 + add a :validate 1.1 which adds the 'test-only' option.
>       A server can advertise both 1.0 and 1.1 if it wants to.
> 
>   3.  Just describe a :validate 1.1 which adds the 'test-only' option
>       and removes the inline config option.
> 
> 
> If 1 is choosen, 'test-only' could be added in a separate capability
> in another document.
> 
> Comments?
> 
> 
> /martin
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
> 

-- 
Balazs Lengyel                       Ericsson Hungary Ltd.
System Manager
ECN: 831 7320                        Fax: +36 1 4377792
Tel: +36-1-437-7320                  email: [email-masked]