[netconf] Order of elements in an input/output
Michal Vaško <mvasko@cesnet.cz> Tue, 30 March 2021 08:46 UTC
Return-Path: <mvasko@cesnet.cz>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A69143A2BC2 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 01:46:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, PDS_TONAME_EQ_TOLOCAL_SHORT=1.999, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cesnet.cz
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 14dpAvRaj0Pz for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 01:45:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kalendar.cesnet.cz (kalendar.cesnet.cz [78.128.211.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C4D0E3A2BC0 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 01:45:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by kalendar.cesnet.cz (Postfix, from userid 110) id 74DC8600A1; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 10:45:55 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cesnet.cz; s=kalendar; t=1617093955; bh=Vpl7B7GEXgmjuZFCFeCuVNHRbTCkiNCfCdK03Y/Id2E=; h=From:To:Date:Subject; b=XI7YA2Aqqtw4azI/XFWw52t1LCR++DRhgyMsdsM2JFF2Rc8adk0w/LnUIJZ3BQ5n6 SlwwuzF9KaNu3v13Y0tvs4/CXm6swvSVXhfdR55DcIXIAPEabzz6GcDvOb6WphERxt Sk3KwN88j2ECuXBCtpKm72nWEIHmeTvBrAf6PmQI=
From: Michal Vaško <mvasko@cesnet.cz>
To: netconf <netconf@ietf.org>
User-Agent: SOGoMail 5.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 10:45:55 +0200
Message-ID: <39e5-6062e580-35-56ecb50@200194949>
X-Forward: 84.42.188.124
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/rxpJmy7gUnOjVKHv9TZ8pRoOzi8>
Subject: [netconf] Order of elements in an input/output
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF WG list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 08:46:05 -0000
Hi, there seem to be 2 contradictory requirements for the order of input/output elements in a NETCONF message. It should be ordered [1] but augments can be applied in any order [2]. The only way to satisfy both requirements seem to be to enforce the order of base input/output elements but not for elements from augments. Is this interpretation correct? Regards, Michal [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-7.14.4 [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-7.17.2
- [netconf] Order of elements in an input/output Michal Vaško
- Re: [netconf] Order of elements in an input/output Ladislav Lhotka