Re: [Netconf] 4741bis - error-severity

WashamFan <Washam.Fan@huaweisymantec.com> Mon, 04 May 2009 02:09 UTC

Return-Path: <Washam.Fan@huaweisymantec.com>
X-Original-To: netconf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F7CA3A6A46 for <netconf@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 May 2009 19:09:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.831
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.831 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.336, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FttovDZLfPOe for <netconf@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 May 2009 19:08:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta1.huaweisymantec.com (unknown [218.17.155.14]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FE553A63D3 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 May 2009 19:08:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-disposition: inline
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Received: from hstml01-in.huaweisymantec.com ([172.26.3.41]) by hstga01-in.huaweisymantec.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-5.02 (built Oct 12 2007; 32bit)) with ESMTP id <0KJ300A6JKOXC840@hstga01-in.huaweisymantec.com> for netconf@ietf.org; Mon, 04 May 2009 10:10:11 +0800 (CST)
Received: from huaweisymantec.com ([127.0.0.1]) by hstml01-in.huaweisymantec.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-5.02 (built Oct 12 2007; 32bit)) with ESMTP id <0KJ300IYSKOVLP10@hstml01-in.huaweisymantec.com> for netconf@ietf.org; Mon, 04 May 2009 10:10:09 +0800 (CST)
Received: from [10.27.154.65] by hstml01-in.huaweisymantec.com (mshttpd); Mon, 04 May 2009 10:10:07 +0800
From: WashamFan <Washam.Fan@huaweisymantec.com>
To: Andy Bierman <andy@netconfcentral.com>
Message-id: <fb22f781846.49febeff@huaweisymantec.com>
Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 10:10:07 +0800
X-Mailer: Sun Java(tm) System Messenger Express 6.3-5.02 (built Oct 12 2007; 32bit)
Content-language: en
X-Accept-Language: en
Priority: normal
In-reply-to: <49F9C2E4.5000709@netconfcentral.com>
References: <20090430.160226.69975872.mbj@tail-f.com> <49F9C2E4.5000709@netconfcentral.com>
Cc: netconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Netconf] 4741bis - error-severity
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netconf>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 02:09:04 -0000

> 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
>  Netconf@ietf.org
>  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>