[netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040 (6473)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Wed, 10 March 2021 23:24 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
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 99E153A0DD2 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 15:24:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.92
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.92 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 J34JwWZ8_UCQ for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 15:24:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 578C93A0E29 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 15:24:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 3F443F4076F; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 15:24:31 -0800 (PST)
To: andy@yumaworks.com, mbj@tail-f.com, kwatsen@juniper.net, warren@kumari.net, rwilton@cisco.com, kent+ietf@watsen.net, mjethanandani@gmail.com
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 1005:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: kyyun@cisco.com, netconf@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20210310232431.3F443F4076F@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2021 15:24:31 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/FyISugrQOylMFIvzekvZQOeq7lU>
Subject: [netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040 (6473)
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: Wed, 10 Mar 2021 23:24:42 -0000
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/eid6473 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Kyoung-Hwan Yun <kyyun@cisco.com> Section: B.3.2 Original Text ------------- Example 3: depth=3 To limit the depth level to the target resource plus two child resource layers, the value "3" is used. GET /restconf/data/example-jukebox:jukebox?depth=3 HTTP/1.1 Host: example.com Accept: application/yang-data+json The server might respond as follows: HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 20:56:30 GMT Server: example-server Cache-Control: no-cache Content-Type: application/yang-data+json { "example-jukebox:jukebox" : { "library" : { "artist" : {} }, "playlist" : [ { "name" : "Foo-One", "description" : "example playlist 1", "song" : {} } ], "player" : { "gap" : 0.5 } } } Corrected Text -------------- Example 3: depth=3 To limit the depth level to the target resource plus two child resource layers, the value "3" is used. GET /restconf/data/example-jukebox:jukebox?depth=3 HTTP/1.1 Host: example.com Accept: application/yang-data+json The server might respond as follows: HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 20:56:30 GMT Server: example-server Cache-Control: no-cache Content-Type: application/yang-data+json { "example-jukebox:jukebox" : { "library" : { "artist" : [] }, "playlist" : [ { "name" : "Foo-One", "description" : "example playlist 1", "song" : [] } ], "player" : { "gap" : 0.5 } } } Notes ----- "artist" and "song" are defined as list. Therefore, according to RFC 7951, they should be encoded as array instead of object. 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
- [netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040 (64… RFC Errata System
- Re: [netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040… Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: [netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040… Per Andersson (perander)
- Re: [netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040… Martin Björklund
- Re: [netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040… Juergen Schoenwaelder