> On 23 Nov 2015, at 14:09, Martin Bjorklund <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Ladislav Lhotka <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Y02-01 allows "must" as a substatement of "input", "output" and
>> "notification" but for these cases the specification of the context
>> node in sec. 7.5.3 doesn't work.
>>
>> o The context node is the node in the accessible tree for which the
>> "must" statement is defined.
>
> You are right. But note how the accessible tree is defined. There is
> a node for the operation / notification. This node should be the
Not in rpc/action output:
<rpc-reply message-id="101"
xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<reset-finished-at xmlns="http://example.net/server-farm";>
2014-07-29T13:42:12Z
</reset-finished-at>
</rpc-reply>
> context node:
>
> o If the "must" statement is a substatement of a "notification"
> statement, the context node is the node representing the
> notification in the accessible tree.
>
> o If the "must" statement is a substatement of a "input"
> statement, the context node is the node representing the
> operation in the accessible tree.
>
> o If the "must" statement is a substatement of a "output"
> statement, the context node is the node representing the
> operation in the accessible tree.
In the last bullet, I don't know what the node representing the operation is.
In XML encoding, the request is
<rpc ...>
<opname ...>
...
</opname>
</rpc>
so I understand the <opname> element is the node representing the operation,
but in a reply the <opname> element isn't present.
Am I missing something?
Lada
>
>
> /martin
--
Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
