Re: [Netconf] Clarification about additional attributes at Messages(RPC) layer

Section 4.2 says that "message-id" is mandatory, and that the server MUST
return any additional attributes included in the <rpc> element.  But it doesn't
say anything that limits a server returning even more.

My assumption is that it is allowed.  Specifically, from an XML document
encoding perspective, it is always valid to move "xmlns" prefix declarations
to ancestor elements…

K.  // contributor

On 1/30/18, 1:25 PM, "Mahesh Jethanandani" <mjethanandani@gmail.com<mailto:mjethanandani@gmail.com>> wrote:

[As contributor]

On Jan 30, 2018, at 6:54 AM, Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net<mailto:kwatsen@juniper.net>> wrote:

I believe that this is allowed by [1], but worry about interoperability due to the "config-id" attribute being a proprietary extension.

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6241#section-4.2<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_rfc6241-23section-2D4.2&d=DwMFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=iT-5cpJaklJMJbEVRv4fgPBCu63AMMak0WbYDDMdYts&s=0FHMPEAKMzcNdQB20gJvvoJinRvDVVr13531hZJHbtY&e=>

Per that section, what is returned is what was originally in the request. The nc-ext is something that has been added in the response, and was not existing in the request.

To Shiva’s question, it is not clear how the clients will react to additional data in the <rpc-reply>. Will they just ignore it, or barf at it?

Kent  // contributor

Assuming the namespace prefix is there to support

On 1/29/18, 3:17 PM, "Netconf on behalf of Shiva Kumar Pathori" <netconf-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:netconf-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of pathori@gmail.com<mailto:pathori@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi,
Can somebody clarify below <rpc-reply> sent by the NETCONF server will break the NETCONF client functionality. Additional attribute information is shown in RED color.

<rpc message-id="101"

          xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">

       <edit-config>

         <target>

           <running/>

         </target>

         <config>

           <top xmlns="http://example.com/schema/1.2/config<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__example.com_schema_1.2_config&d=DwMFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=nAjM7pDWG7HS1viFkN6mWV_1Ii2GVce-FvEqf3h0gfo&s=LQjMxXfz35-ysUajs_4pgqhw9Cmbna4-0672JlBXzNI&e=>">

             <interface>

               <name>Ethernet0/0</name>

               <mtu>1500</mtu>

             </interface>

           </top>

         </config>

       </edit-config>

     </rpc>

<rpc-reply message-id="101"

          xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0"

          xmlns:nc-ext="http://sample.com/netconf/ext<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sample.com_netconf_ext&d=DwMFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=nAjM7pDWG7HS1viFkN6mWV_1Ii2GVce-FvEqf3h0gfo&s=H__4DCa9XJZJTIQ_Ewl7nAey_4XKXSKLAh-48KhPxMI&e=>" nc-ext:config-id="1">

       <ok/>

     </rpc-reply>

I have just tried with MG SOFT NETCONF browser and worked fine, I think MG SOFT browser ignored these attributes.

_______________________________________________
Netconf mailing list
Netconf@ietf.org<mailto:Netconf@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_netconf&d=DwMFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=iT-5cpJaklJMJbEVRv4fgPBCu63AMMak0WbYDDMdYts&s=rw5qXFv9bAYyUmvp0t9QdGF7ogdxJrQJWUEdpRzAE4A&e=>

Mahesh Jethanandani
mjethanandani@gmail.com<mailto:mjethanandani@gmail.com>