IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Netconf] RESTCONF and draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-get-off-my-lawn-04 (on the IESG telechat this week)

Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Tue, 13 May 2014 19:03 UTC

Return-Path: <andy@yumaworks.com>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE17B1A0146 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 May 2014 12:03:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 opVejWnI5kZH for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 May 2014 12:03:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qg0-f44.google.com (mail-qg0-f44.google.com [209.85.192.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 624C51A0164 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 May 2014 12:03:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qg0-f44.google.com with SMTP id i50so1033146qgf.17 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 May 2014 12:03:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=1UuqEgfgwQ53wNF/v9QuZKXGbrPMeDJJhsOkQI/scgQ=; b=WXVrw+UKIF4UOSXnZl5N9SvW3H5F1jJEXUMdQ5YugujLACFObRF6olPV59JpC0cUT2 Bm88zkDnhJMqd0y6wvx71eValfvKp5bFsWjii8B2IOlW8HJGbmfNV5YakPHoVDjO4VgI 3uAib7xdlrcrQpYaRyFy+/jqTv2PGDs5QumCBEXvAhY8ztn/chEwdemyfv2b0YqoqO9q dxX6opeIP3Dvg4ky5/A3IZEneDDBdxgLqZ+g9e/NPQju9urGQzQj7YCqcqhbeGMwa8ib dGIQ41WruspAt1uYSteoS6g36R3V19Jt5mbOLiAiBVwEjUyH53qUAvzmm+xF5E/DZx5n hoxg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmG43UwQ7IOEQFyL2rqIC+fBm/9+8qpKuq6rw2ek5AwCTqjh5SP4XE8VFCsrWI/oi2qOuXO
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.27.45 with SMTP id 42mr37577240qgw.94.1400007829830; Tue, 13 May 2014 12:03:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.140.104.49 with HTTP; Tue, 13 May 2014 12:03:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CF97DDB1.6FB67%kwatsen@juniper.net>
References: <53714FEC.2030709@cisco.com> <CABCOCHQ4LoM_xcRH-j=3gYo_eBcOjnLmifed1HNa7mt5_k8xAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABCOCHTMRwSh32owC7E_XCmFm6abcVF4cRigPCz9nBo5R7nQcA@mail.gmail.com> <CF97DDB1.6FB67%kwatsen@juniper.net>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 12:03:49 -0700
Message-ID: <CABCOCHQ8BB-dJdu-jwKhVH3k0UzpCvAY+EOJqfa=EBFveB0RUA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
To: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c152f461577c04f94cb98b"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/EsErvwrhIHRwr0ROvH7JnnBoyPc
Cc: NETCONF <netconf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] RESTCONF and draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-get-off-my-lawn-04 (on the IESG telechat this week)
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 13 May 2014 19:03:59 -0000

On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net> wrote:

>
>  Andy writes:
>
>>   I think RESTCONF violates sec 2.3 wrt/ structure within the URI path.
>>
>    <snip/>
>
>  I agree with Andy that RESTCONF violates section 2.3.  I also think that
> we can remove that violation by supporting "well-known" URIs.  Notice that
> the 2nd paragraph in section 2.3 says "The only exception to this
> requirement is registered 'well-known' URIs, as specified by [RFC5785]."
> My reading is, if we use a "well-known" URI, then our subtree can defined
> sub-structure per RESTCONF convention.
>
>  We discussed using well-known URIs before.   Appendix B.3. in the
> RESTCONF draft ("Open Issues") regards ".well-known usage".  This issue was
> closed with the resolution "not needed in RESTCONF".   We may need to
> revisit that decision now.
>
>
I agree we need to support .well-known to conform to this BCP.


>  Thanks,
> Kent
>
>
Andy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email