[netconf] [Errata Rejected] RFC8040 (6271)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Fri, 12 January 2024 14:48 UTC

To: kent+ietf@watsen.net, 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: <20240112144756.27E491B65DC9@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 06:47:56 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/EJIyY_Ef6Nqkdt9_NxhP0Zwo3W8>
Subject: [netconf] [Errata Rejected] RFC8040 (6271)
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/eid6271

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

Reported by: Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>
Date Reported: 2020-09-01
Rejected by: Robert Wilton (IESG)

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...
--VERIFIER NOTES--
Replaced by errata 6277.

--------------------------------------
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 (6271) RFC Errata System