Re: [YANG] errors

Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com> wrote:
>> Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>>> Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com> wrote:
>>>> Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>>>>> Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 08:41:49AM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What if the DM writer wants to raise an existing standard error?
>>>>> That's what I meant when I wrote that the raise-error is in addition
>>>>> to the standard errors.  I.e. nothing needs to be done in the DM for
>>>>> this scenario.
>>>>>
>>>> except there has to be a CLR that no error-app-tag value can be
>>>> one of the standard error-tag values. 
>>> Why?
>>>
>>>
>> error lock-denied {
>>    error-tag operation-failed;
>> }
>>
>>   ...
>>   raise-error lock-denied;
>>
>>
>> Is this raise-error for the standard lock-denied or for the
>> vendor error called lock-denied, defined in the same module?
> 
> The idea was (I think it came from you :) that the identifier for the
> error clause is error-app-tag.  So the above would be in XML:
> 
>   <rpc-error>
>     <error-tag>operation-failed</error>
>     <error-app-tag>lock-denied</error-app-tag>
>   </rpc-error>
> 
> Thus, no name clash.
> 

huh?

then how do you specify a 'raise-error' for the lock-denied in RFC 4741?

> Side note: the error-app-tag is defined as a string in rfc4741, but
> IMO is should have been a QName.  If it was, all error-app-tags would
> be local per namespace, so the above would be:
> 
>     <error-app-tag xmlns:foo="...">foo:lock-denied</error-app-tag>
> 
> 
> /martin
> 
> 

Andy

_______________________________________________
YANG mailing list
YANG@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang