[netmod] A blind carbon copy
Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Tue, 13 March 2018 13:03 UTC
Return-Path: <mbj@tail-f.com>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FAD8126C83 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 06:03:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 PzrkwYRww71z for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 06:03:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7889A12D943 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 06:03:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [173.38.220.45]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AEE311AE0493 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 14:03:42 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 14:03:42 +0100
Message-Id: <20180313.140342.2062467317018814172.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: Bcc-Receiver:;
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 24.5 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; boundary="--Next_Part(Tue_Mar_13_14_03_42_2018_999)--"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/xkSUrhDF5AlKIMRTTWX3oUp29BM>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 06:07:03 -0700
Subject: [netmod] A blind carbon copy
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 13:03:47 -0000
This is a blind carbon copy.
--- Begin Message ---[Moving to NETCONF, Bcc:ing NETMOD] "Bogaert, Bart (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <bart.bogaert@nokia.com> wrote: > Hi, > > We have a question about the following statement in the edit-config RPC section: > > "If the <edit-config> operation contains multiple sub-operations > that apply to the same conceptual node in the underlying data > model, then the result of the operation is undefined (i.e., > outside the scope of the NETCONF protocol)." > > How do we need to read this? Does this mean that if there is an > edit-config in which, say, 10 interfaces are created these 10 > interfaces need to be grouped in the same "section" of the > edit-config as this: > <edit-config> > ... > <interfaces> > <interface> > <name>one</name> > ... > </interface> > <interface> > <name>two</name> > ... > </interface> > </interfaces> > ... > </edit-config> > > And not like this: > <edit-config> > ... > <interfaces> > <interface> > <name>one</name> > ... > </interface> > </interfaces> > ... > <interfaces> > <interface> > <name>two</name> > </interface> > </interfaces> > ... > </edit-config> Yes, I think so. Probably most implementations will handle this the way you expect, if the operation is "merge". But if it is "replace" you probably won't get the same result from all implementations. /martin--- End Message ---
- [netmod] A blind carbon copy Martin Bjorklund