Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040 (5565)

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Mon, 03 December 2018 08:58 UTC

Return-Path: <mbj@tail-f.com>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CE3A130E01 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Dec 2018 00:58:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 wyCI3YhRJqJN for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Dec 2018 00:58:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 316A1126C01 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Dec 2018 00:58:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (h-39-108.A165.priv.bahnhof.se [213.136.39.108]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EFCD41AE0386; Mon, 3 Dec 2018 09:58:19 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2018 09:54:09 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <20181203.095409.224403340529984673.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Cc: andy@yumaworks.com, kwatsen@juniper.net, ibagdona@gmail.com, warren@kumari.net, mjethanandani@gmail.com, bill.wu@huawei.com, netconf@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <20181203055737.B72D1B8122E@rfc-editor.org>
References: <20181203055737.B72D1B8122E@rfc-editor.org>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 25.2 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/9u8iTO6TA4B3bv2Zhkff8edTe5c>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040 (5565)
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf/>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2018 08:58:23 -0000

Hi,

I don't think this errata should be accepted.  404 means that the
requested resource doesn't exist, but "data-missing" can be returned
e.g. if you try to patch an existing resource of type leafref to point
to a non-existing leaf.


/martin


RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8040,
> "RESTCONF Protocol".
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5565
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
> 
> Section: 7
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
>               +-------------------------+------------------+
>               | error-tag               | status code      |
>               +-------------------------+------------------+
>               | in-use                  | 409              |
>               | lock-denied             | 409              |
>               | resource-denied         | 409              |
>               | data-exists             | 409              |
>               | data-missing            | 409              |
> 
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
>               +-------------------------+------------------+
>               | error-tag               | status code      |
>               +-------------------------+------------------+
>               | in-use                  | 409              |
>               | lock-denied             | 409              |
>               | resource-denied         | 409              |
>               | data-exists             | 409              |
>               | data-missing            | 404              |
> 
> 
> Notes
> -----
> The <error-tag> data missing should be mapped to status code '404' instead of '409' to get consistent with the defintion of data-missing in RFC6241.
> 
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party  
> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC8040 (draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-18)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : RESTCONF Protocol
> Publication Date    : January 2017
> Author(s)           : A. Bierman, M. Bjorklund, K. Watsen
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : Network Configuration
> Area                : Operations and Management
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG
>