Subject: Re: [Netconf] 4741bis - error-severity

From: WashamFan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 10:10:07 +0800

> Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>  > Hi,
>  > 
>  > <error-severity> is defined to be 'error' or 'warning'.  In the list
>  > of errors in Appendix A, 'warning' never occurs.
>  > 
>  > Also, according to the XSD, <ok> and <rpc-error> cannot be returned 
> at
>  > the same time, so there is no way to return <ok> and a warning at the
>  > same time.
>  > 
>  > There are three alternatives:
>  > 
>  >    1.  remove warning
>  > 
>  >    2.  fix warning so that it works
>  > 
>  >    3.  keep warning but clarify that it doesn't work
>  > 
>  > 
>  > Comments?
>  > 
>  
>  Does anybody actually implement any warnings?
>  If not, then (1) is good.
>  
>  In order to choose (2), we would have to understand
>  what we mean by a 'warning', and write it down.
>  Maybe if we did that the first time, we would have
>  tossed this error-severity field.
>  

I personally prefer (2). warnings are not errors, but they may
lead to errors. For example, 'capabilities-changed' is more a 
warning than error, IMO. For affected operations, it is not the
direct reason why they failed ( the direct reason would be   
'operation-not-supported' or 'data-missing', etc) whileas for
unaffected operations, it is only a warning, and should be returned
with <ok>. Please refer to 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netconf/current/msg04493.html
( I think this email has been ignored )

washam

>  > 
>  > /martin
>  
>  Andy
>  
>  
>  _______________________________________________
>  Netconf mailing list
>  [email-masked]
>  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>