[core] #415 (interfaces): Linked Batched post usage, persistency and version need for interfaces
"core issue tracker" <trac+core@zinfandel.tools.ietf.org> Fri, 15 July 2016 10:23 UTC
Return-Path: <trac+core@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 978B812DD0D for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jul 2016 03:23:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.187
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.187 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qY7mEHRAhA_p for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jul 2016 03:23:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (zinfandel.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3658112DC29 for <core@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Jul 2016 03:23:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([::1]:51081 helo=zinfandel.tools.ietf.org) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.82_1-5b7a7c0-XX) (envelope-from <trac+core@trac.tools.ietf.org>) id 1bO0HK-00081g-01; Fri, 15 Jul 2016 03:23:30 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: core issue tracker <trac+core@zinfandel.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Version: 0.12.5
Precedence: bulk
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.5, by Edgewall Software
To: draft-ietf-core-interfaces@tools.ietf.org, lauri.piikivi@arm.com
X-Trac-Project: core
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 10:23:29 -0000
X-URL: https://tools.ietf.org/core/
X-Trac-Ticket-URL: https://tools.ietf.org/wg/core/trac/ticket/415
Message-ID: <061.bb9885835d474fbcc690496598378041@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 415
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-core-interfaces@tools.ietf.org, lauri.piikivi@arm.com, core@ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+core@trac.tools.ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Resent-To: draft-ietf-core-interfaces@ietf.org
Resent-Message-Id: <20160715102345.3658112DC29@ietfa.amsl.com>
Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 03:23:45 -0700
Resent-From: trac+core@trac.tools.ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/udaRWfYUZjpXLiiT9loBK6EynsU>
Cc: core@ietf.org
Subject: [core] #415 (interfaces): Linked Batched post usage, persistency and version need for interfaces
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Reply-To: trac+core@zinfandel.tools.ietf.org
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <core.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/core/>
List-Post: <mailto:core@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 10:23:47 -0000
#415: Linked Batched post usage, persistency and version need for interfaces Hi, Reading the draft, some comments below. == POST usage == In chapter 5.3 for the linked batch, POST is used as modification and creation of the list. POST is usually understood as creation (for CRUD operations). We have PATCH for modify operation. I recommend to use PATCH for modification operations. - POST creates - PUT replaces - PATCH modifies (appends) - DELETE removes == Linked Batch as persistent resource or transient configuration == There may be servers that create a persistent linked batch. They should be able to return the location, the new resource, to client. Even for transient (RAM storage linked batch), location usage could clarify the situations with server reset. The server is often in an embedded, maybe wireless, device and reset operations are common. If a linked batch is created, and server resets, a modification later on can actually be a creation operation, especially if POST is used for both creation and modification. Server should return a new resource id in location header for linked batch creation. Later operations use that resource URI for modifications and delete. If the resource is lost (RAM reset), a not found error is returned. It may be not too far in future that an embedded server has different linked batch for different clients. Persistent linked batch is reported to the RD or client well-known query as a resource in the server. Should we have different interface type or identification for persistent linked batch? == Interface Version == The chapter on function set (ch 6) talks about the need for versioning. It is not clear to me how the version would work? Do we need version in the interface information? Web/REST apis are truly fast evolving, and a version information might be needed for a client to understand what version of an interface is in use. The version information might be in the interface name (v1, v2 in the end) or in link parameter even? If linked batch returns a new resource, should we have the version information as link parameter? Creation makes version 1, modifications increase the version number? -- -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-core- lauri.piikivi@arm.com | interfaces@tools.ietf.org Type: protocol | Status: new enhancement | Milestone: Priority: minor | Version: Component: interfaces | Keywords: Severity: - | -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: <https://tools.ietf.org/wg/core/trac/ticket/415> core <https://tools.ietf.org/core/>
- [core] #415 (interfaces): Linked Batched post usa… core issue tracker