Re: [YANG] errors

Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com> wrote:
> > 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?

You don't.  Unless you also have an error-app-tag:

  error my-extra-lock-denied {
    error-tag lock-denied;
  }

The idea was that really do not want to list all std errors that can
occur:

   rpc my-rpc {
     ...
     raise-error missing-element;
     raise-error bad-namespace;
     ...     
   }

These std errors can always occur.  No need to specify them again.

-----

We also disucssed an alternative way to do this, which is slightly
more flexible.  In this variant, the error is identified with an
identifier, which has no meaning on the wire.  It's just a local
identifier like a typedef or grouping identifier.  Then within the
error, you have the statement 'error-app-tag' in addition to the other
stmts:

   error my-error {
     error-tag invalid-value;
     error-app-tag bad-mtu;
   }

/martin

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