Re: [netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040 (6271)

Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Tue, 01 September 2020 19:28 UTC

Return-Path: <andy@yumaworks.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 149FB3A0F9E for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Sep 2020 12:28:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.887
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.887 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 ihXJHOiTR3Ht for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Sep 2020 12:28:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x234.google.com (mail-lj1-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::234]) (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 1D48D3A0F9F for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Sep 2020 12:28:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x234.google.com with SMTP id w3so2960769ljo.5 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 01 Sep 2020 12:28:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=xUYIdCC0SjYLPwircK53DWZPiN5XHfnAVKie2DJFoAg=; b=y43uzbuH/nYbVJ5ZKxUaU0tBT/YRBB0xD/mAvKwGwZf+Iwz2pzww+XioCZiHXLWeDF TfxJHD+NJV+oDk0nwl0Ow/wWM3mYEZt3T+EKw0+gLR3nz/e9KHip+DlZWH+jXqyPwpyu KtWqcS2wi6ljvo3vt9Ccljgn3Kw4fusaP/FhR+vAKZFJuTVB5p+yDtMBgWrO9F5LTCtj W6U4/d3Y57+PKWoiA/fh/5cPxE/SuYN3weAftjZr1MlvVP8NFAUeirvF4ZB8WcoVprpR uGbFgJUbnnUW507Q4k30zJXpMw0N0MFwzmUOFq8ug/y9OxltXw2PX5KbkNIaY/Gcog7U frAA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=xUYIdCC0SjYLPwircK53DWZPiN5XHfnAVKie2DJFoAg=; b=Z4XqtA2aG86a4WEpcyKxeNK8mOMqFYTBvjGdreUy3w4Efm6DrQc2iDjYsIsvKkMlcJ X+f9Bw6CyeRWK5hu+kcEGxpo/3JKaA/GIh/o5N5Ot/C5i/s6ONR/oNxnCs0t9yaSRuek L9bc021hINeAHb8tSjbwatPpFlwkPClnYQ9djgQWN8sL0pJTUhUvjmg6/enkVkARxEkg jGqzjD8pNpQ8Sbu7X+GDuXx3MLKr7GBKZn0EODPsFEIfvrfopyxHXTse5ZS7R/9RR/LF YNcZbl++HQLxyZxaQkmHDOx7heO99iBEJXswNhrCRB1Q3qAmDOc72270wQMoNU4A6My2 qKuQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530+YIIFU56ODU2PaD5H+ayMkyXVxw8ZX1kJOtPJBU3b5E+zcO5R 5drBk4mubdERSzku44ljEV6ot39f4iukltSYUsEFnA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxLI6Medri1xe6SvMKLhB6hZ/i+DsrjVNCwFo9rL/ZQNrlX3Exmox2/c9qBmP+BB3rOPLESdxUA+pbpV1pYuIo=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9bc3:: with SMTP id w3mr1291802ljj.320.1598988513180; Tue, 01 Sep 2020 12:28:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200901173726.8E404F40785@rfc-editor.org>
In-Reply-To: <20200901173726.8E404F40785@rfc-editor.org>
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 12:28:22 -0700
Message-ID: <CABCOCHQvCSmQfxgUg24zMm_hWmdVDHjWn1Pjxdr22nPL-Awy3g@mail.gmail.com>
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>, Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>, Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>, Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>, Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>, Netconf <netconf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000054188205ae458652"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/DHrspkioQ3tmlgGh0jQYuFt0-Io>
Subject: Re: [netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040 (6271)
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: Tue, 01 Sep 2020 19:28:37 -0000

Hi,

I agree this errata should be accepted.


Andy


On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 10:37 AM 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:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6271
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>
>
> Section: 4.5
>
> Original Text
> -------------
>    The "insert" (Section 4.8.5) and "point" (Section 4.8.6) query
>    parameters MUST be supported by the PUT method for data resources.
>    These parameters are only allowed if the list or leaf-list is
>    "ordered-by user".
>
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
>    The "insert" (Section 4.8.5) and "point" (Section 4.8.6) query
>    parameters MUST be supported by the PUT method for data resources.
>    These parameters are only allowed if the target resource is a
>    non-existent entry of an "ordered-by user" list or leaf-list.
>
> Notes
> -----
> First, Section 3.5 (Data Resource) says that "list" and "leaf-leaf" are
> not a data resources:
>
>   A data resource represents a YANG data node that is a descendant node
>   of a datastore resource. Each YANG-defined data node can be uniquely
>   targeted by the request-line of an HTTP method. Containers, leafs,
>   leaf-list entries, list entries, anydata nodes, and anyxml nodes are
>   data resources.
>
> Second, these query parameters only make sense when targeting a
> non-existent entry.   If the entry does not exist, then PUT is being used
> like a POST: to create and place an item in an ordered list.  However, if
> the entry exists, then PUT is being used to both replace the contents and
> (presumably) re-place the order in the list; but this doesn't make sense
> because:
>
>   1) "insert" defaults to "last".
>   2) there is no "insert" value to indicate "keep existing placement".
>   3) having to concoct valid "insert" and "point" values is hard.
>
> Thus indiscriminate PUTs would move entries to the end, which can't be
> desired...
>
> 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
>