IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netconf] Question about NETCONF errors

"Ivory, William" <william.ivory@intl.att.com> Fri, 25 January 2019 12:46 UTC

Return-Path: <william.ivory@intl.att.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 37AB1124BAA for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 04:46:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_DYNAMIC=2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 UU2S6mm54aKs for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 04:46:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.149.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D63BB124B0C for <netconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 04:46:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0049297.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0049297.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x0PCjP9R005904; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 07:46:32 -0500
Received: from alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp7.sbc.com [144.160.229.24]) by m0049297.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 2q7w8up6q6-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 25 Jan 2019 07:46:32 -0500
Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x0PCkUd1015373; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 07:46:30 -0500
Received: from zlp27126.vci.att.com (zlp27126.vci.att.com [135.66.87.47]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x0PCkQ9V015314; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 07:46:27 -0500
Received: from zlp27126.vci.att.com (zlp27126.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp27126.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 799C44030705; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 12:46:26 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from gbcdccas01.intl.att.com (unknown [135.76.180.9]) by zlp27126.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTPS id 316D2400036F; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 12:46:26 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from GBCDCMBX03.intl.att.com ([135.76.31.134]) by gbcdccas01.intl.att.com ([135.76.180.9]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 12:46:23 +0000
From: "Ivory, William" <william.ivory@intl.att.com>
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
CC: "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netconf] Question about NETCONF errors
Thread-Index: AdSz6o52ny0vNaVGSiOE0lg/23cR0A==
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 12:46:23 +0000
Message-ID: <E3378E0605547F4E854DEE0CB1116AB00E7761AF@gbcdcmbx03.intl.att.com>
References: <E3378E0605547F4E854DEE0CB1116AB00E775BA2@gbcdcmbx03.intl.att.com> <20190125.133709.877670768614099890.mbj@tail-f.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.76.180.249]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-01-25_08:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1901250104
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/CToBJAhH-7pZl3OAv8WXSjSIso4>
Subject: Re: [netconf] Question about NETCONF errors
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF WG 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: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 12:46:34 -0000

Hi Martin,

It's a get-config in this case.  Thanks for the reply - that answers my
question.

William

On 25/01/2019 12:37, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> "Ivory, William" <william.ivory@intl.att.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've got a question about the appropriate error to return (if indeed it
>> is an error) in the following case.  If I have a top-level YANG
>> container node in my configuration that's non-presence, then there are 2
>> possible responses:
>>
>> (a) config present, returned, no error
>>
>> (b) no config present, no data returned
>>
>> Is the latter an error case (eg 'unknown-element') or should that only
>> be returned for a node that cannot exist, rather than one that simply
>> doesn't exist in the current configuration?
> Which rpc operation do you send?  I'm guessing a get or get-config
> with a subtree filter that selects the container.  These operations do
> not return errors if the data is not present, they simply don't return
> the data.
>
>
> /martin
>
>
>> I've looked at RFC-6241, but didn't find the error descriptions terribly
>> helpful.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> William
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> netconf mailing list
>> netconf@ietf.org
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_netconf&d=DwICAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=p8kyeK3u4ZYiaQ2ZPGqwkyXmQgBH6r5jpYiYWzhqJ48&m=nVuDLXOBBRm7-sI3unWRAyWUbdGS3bOuH8Q--fN6Ffk&s=SnIKIDO2kgw6vJQKEJ3spTJqd8Squ2-qmp5ZAkukAyA&e=
>>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email