From: netmod <netmod-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> 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. Tom Petch /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 netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
