search

osgi / bugzilla-archive

Archive of OSGi Alliance Specification Bugzilla bugs. The Specification Bugzilla system was decommissioned with the move to GitHub. The issues in this repository are imported from the Specification Bugzilla system for archival purposes.
0 stars 1 forks source link

[RFC149] How PA should handle a node name whose length exceeds the length defined in TR model #1694

Closed bjhargrave closed 13 years ago

bjhargrave commented 13 years ago

Original bug ID: BZ#1826 From: Ikuo Yamasaki <yamasaki.ikuo@lab.ntt.co.jp> Reported version: R4 V4.3

bjhargrave commented 13 years ago

Comment author: Ikuo Yamasaki <yamasaki.ikuo@lab.ntt.co.jp>

It is not clear that how PA should handle the node name whose length exceeds the length defined in TR model.

For example, in Table 2 of TR-098, DeviceSummary has the type "string(1024). However, if the DP implementing it in DMT will return the node name whose length exceeds 1024, what should happen ?

IMO, TR-069 PA will just send back XxxResponse including the node name retrieved through DmtSession to the ACS. How the ACS handle it is out of scope of RFC149. (it is up to the ACS impl. It might ignore it or log an error).

Is my understanding correct ? Based on the conclusion, I will add those clarification (responsibility of PA) in RFC149.

bjhargrave commented 13 years ago

Comment author: Evgeni Grigorov <e.grigorov@prosyst.com>

It is not clear that how PA should handle the node name whose length exceeds the length defined in TR model.

For example, in Table 2 of TR-098, DeviceSummary has the type "string(1024). However, if the DP implementing it in DMT will return the node name whose length exceeds 1024, what should happen ?

IMO, TR-069 PA will just send back XxxResponse including the node name retrieved through DmtSession to the ACS. How the ACS handle it is out of scope of RFC149. (it is up to the ACS impl. It might ignore it or log an error).

Is my understanding correct ? Based on the conclusion, I will add those clarification (responsibility of PA) in RFC149. The suggestion is OK to me, because OSGi DMT doesn't have string length restrictions.

bjhargrave commented 13 years ago

Comment author: Ikuo Yamasaki <yamasaki.ikuo@lab.ntt.co.jp>

This bug is closed because it is moved to the Issue 2 of Bug#1828. https://www.osgi.org/members/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1828