----- Original Message ----- From: "Mikael Abrahamsson" <[email protected]> To: "Randy Presuhn" <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2019 12:35 PM
> On Wed, 1 May 2019, Randy Presuhn wrote: > > > Hi - > > > > On 5/1/2019 12:46 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > > .... > >> Where is the text that tells the server implementor whether to throw an > >> error when client commits non-zero bits, or to just throw the bits away > >> and store the value in the canonical format? > > > > Such text would be an inappropriate constraint the server's > > internal representation. We should only specify > > the externally-visible behaviour: that the reported value > > will be in the canonical format. Whether an implementation > > preserves extraneous cruft in its internal representation is > > purely an implementation decision, and not subject to standardization. > > I am talking about what goes on the wire. If the client does an > edit-config with ipv6-prefix 2001:db8::1/64, should the server convert > this into 2001:db8::/64 or throw an error on the edit-config operation. > > Jurgen seems to say it should convert it and not throw an error, and I'd > like text to say that indeed, this is proper behaviour. Nobody has so far > been able to tell me where this text currently is, so that's why I'm > asking for it to be added. Either this should go into an update to > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-9.1 or it should go into each > and every definition of types (or both of them). Mikael How about RFC791, still much quoted in all aspects of the work of the IETF? " In general, an implementation must be conservative in its sending behavior, and liberal in its receiving behavior. That is, it must be careful to send well-formed datagrams, but must accept any datagram that it can interpret (e.g., not object to technical errors where the meaning is still clear)." We did not have MUST in those days, but had we, this would have been one IMHO. Tom Petch > >> It seems it should "fix it", so we should > >> have text that reflects this. > > > > False dichotomy. An implementation might actually preserve > > those bits, though of course they'd never be seen again (at > > least not on a netconf interface) since the netconf server > > will always behave as though the value were in its canonical > > form, regardless of the internal representation. > > Again, I am talking about what goes on the wire, what is seen when issuing > "get" or "edit-config" etc. > > -- > Mikael Abrahamsson email: [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
