On Fri, Jul 09, 2021 at 08:57:34AM +0000, tom petch wrote: > From: netmod <[email protected]> on behalf of Juergen Schoenwaelder > <[email protected]> > Sent: 08 July 2021 11:13 > > On Thu, Jul 08, 2021 at 09:30:27AM +0000, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote: > > It is perhaps worth noting that the NETCONF copy-config allows for the > > configuration to be specified using any URI, but the server capabilities > > announce which URI schemes are supported. > > > > Hence, I think that it is okay for the YANG model to use URI, but I think > > the draft, and data node description should constrain the URI schemes that > > allowed (perhaps file:// and https://). This would allow support for > > future URI schemes to be added in a future revision of the YANG instance > > data module, if required. > > > > I think it is not "allowed" but "mandatory to implement". We should > allow implementations to support an ftps:// scheme as long as there > is a common baseline. > > <tp> > I am confused. Is ftps: intended to be an existing scheme or a hypothetical > one that may appear in the future. I do not see it in the IANA registry > https://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/uri-schemes.xhtml#uri-schemes-1 > > sftp: appears as a provisional entry in the IANA registry but AFACT did not > get specified. I recall a debate about ftps: v sftp: I favoured the former > but lost but then I did not see any further work on either. >
I used 'ftps:' as an example, I should have taken the time to find RFC 4395 and then I should have picked 'example:'. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
