On 14. 01. 22 12:23, Martin Björklund wrote:
Hi,
Ok, I think I understand what he means. With this XML:
<alarm-category xmlns:nsfmi="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang\
:ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring">
nsfmi:memory-alarm
</alarm-category>
the prefix "nsfmi" is present in the element data, which means that
in order to implement this properly, the XML parser must pass the
namespace mappings to the user code.
So he proposes to add to the draft:
(from https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2nsf/06kJ7vS6X-0hUmGHrCWN-jVzU7M)
11. XML Examples for I2NSF NSF Monitoring
This section shows the XML examples of I2NSF NSF Monitoring data
delivered via Monitoring Interface from an NSF. In order for the XML
to work, the prefix in the element that uses "identityref" type
(e.g., /i2nsf-event/i2nsf-system-detection-alarm/alarm-category/) in
the YANG module described in this document MUST be the same as the
namespace prefix for urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-i2nsf-nsf-
monitoring. The XML software MUST be chosen that makes the namespace
prefix information available.
I think this is a bit odd. Who is supposed to act on the first MUST?
This text is about an example, which is what it is, and it happens to
be correct.
Also, the text about XML software seems unnecessary to me. It follows
from the definition of an identityref in RFC 7950 that the namespace
mapping is needed to parse this correctly.
This is not unique to YANG. For example, XSLT and RELAX NG use XML
prefixes in the values of XML attributes.
Lada
/martin
Ladislav Lhotka <[email protected]> wrote:
On 14. 01. 22 11:39, Martin Björklund wrote:
Hi,
I don't understand the problem either. He writes:
Sorry, but this has the same problem in figure 11.1 that we've just
been
discussing with Ian.
Can you send a pointer to that discussion? Perhaps there's more
context there.
Right. I also suspect that the last sentence should have been
"I don't think it's OK for the draft to say those things."
Lada
/martin
tom petch <[email protected]> wrote:
I see that IANA have taken to asking XML Registry experts about the
registration of YANG namespaces at Last Call, or perhaps they have
always done this but have only recently put the e-mail on a public
list. Anyhow, the experts have taken it upon themselves to comment on
the XML examples and I do not understand this comment. This comes
from
[IANA #1217705] Expert Review for
draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-12 (xml-registry)
by Tim Bray 17 dec 2021 03:03
===============================
Sorry, but this has the same problem in figure 11.1 that we've just
been
discussing with Ian.
For it to work, (a) the prefix in the alarm-category element MUST be
the
same as the namespace prefix for
urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring, which means
that XML
software MUST be chosen that makes the namespace prefix information
available. I don't think it's OK for the draft not to say those
thigns.
<alarm-category
xmlns:nsfmi="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:\
ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring">
nsfmi:memory-alarm
</alarm-category>
=================================================
a) I am unclear what the problem is - I thought that XML allowed great
freedom with prefix even if the IETF would rather not
b) this suggestion seems to be that all I-D with XML examples, which
is pretty much every I-D with a YANG module in it, needs to carry a
warning about what XML software to choose, which seems rather a
burden. Thoughts?
Tom Petch
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
--
Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
--
Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
