You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "libnetconf" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libnetconf+...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/libnetconf.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Thank you very much for all the work you have done so far. I realize that this is complicated and I don't expect you to have a quick answer (you already said that there is not a pre-existing document with this information).
7.19.2 - What I mean by "capacity" is to ask if the status has any impact on the library's behavior or if it is just informational data returned when a client requests the schema. The RFC describes definitions are not allowed to reference lower-status definitions (e.g. current can't reference deprecated, deprecated can't reference obsolete.) Is this somehow enforced (maybe by lnctool generating errors)?
Also, does status impact behavior in any way? For example, I've seen commercial systems where obsolete objects read/delete-only, but can not be created or modified. The intention here being to force operators to upgrade their configuration to the current way of representing the information.
13 - I know that there are APIs to generate these errors. My question is that when these specific conditions (mostly validation, I believe) occur, is the generated error as described in these sections?
Thank you again for all your help here.
On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 10:02:18 AM UTC-4, Radek Krejčí wrote:Hi,
this RFC is very complex. I cannot answer your question right now, but we prepar to revise libnetconf and then the answers will be more clear. Note, that libnetconf actually does not validate directly with YANG, but it uses RNG and schematron generated by pyang. So, many of your questions are not relevant to libnetconf.
5.1.1 - not sure
5.4.1 - supported
7.1.2 - is it important? 1.1 is not yet finished
126.96.36.199 - supported
7.1.6 - not sure
7.7.1 - supported
7.8.4, 7.10 - not sure, there is some code, but it wasn't actually tested
7.9.* - supported by library
7.13 - rpcs are limited in transAPI by the callbacks API
7.16 - no
7.19.2 - yes, what do you mean by capacity? the state data are provided to libnetconf from the transAPI modules
9 - types are used only for validation
13 - I don't understand the question. See nc_err_new() function in libnetconf API
I searched this in the IETF mailing archive, there was a discussion and clarification on this topic 3 years ago, the intention of the RFC is to do the serialization for a single session.
[Netconf] NETCONF message serialization
AB>I thought there was text that this serialization was just within a single
AB>session. I remember that was the intent of the co-authors.
Thanks to Andy, Martin, and Kent for clarifying the intended behavior.
Should there be an update to RFC 6241, I suggest adding a few words to
Section 4.5 to clarify that the serialization occurs per-session.
NETCONF <rpc> requests received on a single session MUST be processed
serially by the managed device. Additional <rpc> requests MAY be sent
on a single session before previous ones have been completed. The
managed device MUST send responses on the session only in the order the
requests were received. A managed device is not required to serially
process <rpc> requests received from different sessions.