[netconf] Question about NETCONF errors

"Ivory, William" <william.ivory@intl.att.com> Thu, 24 January 2019 13:42 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 []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27AC2130E9D for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jan 2019 05:42:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.601
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 ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LO_S-AQ2doyY for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jan 2019 05:42:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com []) (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 1FD78130E99 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2019 05:42:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0048589.ppops.net []) by m0048589.ppops.net-00191d01. ( with SMTP id x0ODaKCV018096 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2019 08:42:01 -0500
Received: from alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp7.sbc.com []) by m0048589.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 2q7bhnbwbd-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <netconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2019 08:42:01 -0500
Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost []) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x0ODg0cO022026 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2019 08:42:00 -0500
Received: from zlp27130.vci.att.com (zlp27130.vci.att.com []) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x0ODfsce021890 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2019 08:41:55 -0500
Received: from zlp27130.vci.att.com (zlp27130.vci.att.com []) by zlp27130.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 30BAE40338D4 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2019 13:41:54 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from gbcdccas01.intl.att.com (unknown []) by zlp27130.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTPS id DC0B140338D1 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2019 13:41:53 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from GBCDCMBX03.intl.att.com ([]) by gbcdccas01.intl.att.com ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Thu, 24 Jan 2019 13:41:50 +0000
From: "Ivory, William" <william.ivory@intl.att.com>
To: "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Question about NETCONF errors
Thread-Index: AdSz6o52ny0vNaVGSiOE0lg/23cR0A==
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 13:41:49 +0000
Message-ID: <E3378E0605547F4E854DEE0CB1116AB00E775BA2@gbcdcmbx03.intl.att.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
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=2019-01-24_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=1031 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=643 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1901240099
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/CY_nX8kPRbNW6bTwHIcDSGr3A6k>
Subject: [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: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 13:42:03 -0000


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?

I've looked at RFC-6241, but didn't find the error descriptions terribly