[netconf] [Errata Rejected] RFC8040 (6342)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Mon, 15 January 2024 14:01 UTC

To: muly_i@rad.com, andy@yumaworks.com, mbj@tail-f.com, kwatsen@juniper.net
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: rwilton@cisco.com, iesg@ietf.org, netconf@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20240115140144.88F0B1A49952@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2024 06:01:44 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/DerfDYdR4iC_yZ7ZVxIqLaeGe8g>
Subject: [netconf] [Errata Rejected] RFC8040 (6342)
Precedence: list

The following errata report has been rejected for RFC8040,
"RESTCONF Protocol".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6342

--------------------------------------
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical

Reported by: Muly Ilan <muly_i@rad.com>
Date Reported: 2020-11-22
Rejected by: Rob Wilton (IESG)

Section: 4.6.1

Original Text
-------------
To replace just the "year" field in the "album" resource (instead of
replacing the entire resource with the PUT method), the client might
send a plain patch as follows:
PATCH /restconf/data/example-jukebox:jukebox/\
library/artist=Foo%20Fighters/album=Wasting%20Light HTTP/1.1
Host: example.com
If-Match: "b8389233a4c"
Content-Type: application/yang-data+xml
<album xmlns="http://example.com/ns/example-jukebox">
<year>2011</year>
</album>

Corrected Text
--------------
To replace just the "year" field in the "album" resource (instead of
replacing the entire resource with the PUT method), the client might
send a plain patch as follows:
PATCH /restconf/data/example-jukebox:jukebox/\
library/artist=Foo%20Fighters/album=Wasting%20Light HTTP/1.1
Host: example.com
If-Match: "b8389233a4c"
Content-Type: application/yang-data+xml
<album xmlns="http://example.com/ns/example-jukebox">
<name>Wasting Light</name>
<year>2011</year>
</album>

Notes
-----
Missing key leaf value in the message-body (<name>Wasting Light</name>)
 --VERIFIER NOTES-- 
As per this thread, https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/ZlAQl3-YljG4tCDlrHP-PGb-KEY/  the consensus amongst the authors was that the RFC does not specify whether keys must be included in a YANG PATCH operation, and hence the default assumption is that they are not required.

It may be helpful for a a future revision of RESTCONF (or possibly YANG) to more explicitly state the required behaviour. 

--------------------------------------
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

[netconf] [Errata Rejected] RFC8040 (6342) RFC Errata System