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

Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net> Wed, 02 September 2020 19:57 UTC

Return-Path: <010001745065426d-097daf26-8257-4b71-b504-e281734cfed6-000000@amazonses.watsen.net>
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 3A5DC3A0DCC for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 12:57:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.894
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.894 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=amazonses.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 n1iZS52v3nng for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 12:57:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from a48-92.smtp-out.amazonses.com (a48-92.smtp-out.amazonses.com [54.240.48.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D78C43A0DDC for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 12:57:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple; s=224i4yxa5dv7c2xz3womw6peuasteono; d=amazonses.com; t=1599076647; h=From:Message-Id:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References:Feedback-ID; bh=LHpjiESSdGDymoiFFPY5pUw+LYefU7NpxtP6cICGYQw=; b=RH2nzzT3l17c3JAH0udT7CQ6+Brz8vggR2yYZYxNbCMVsxuB5N7vkiJmiMZ9UzHz RLJ14SRZ+Q3za2/nj9tEHNmcWFVzmQ4+cmJLgUpwrQqN7KQPmAtGSdrEZOY8aWaSb3c Zto+wly383VCEuXxDRyAnQExmqWhl+wjWVW6sGvg=
From: Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>
Message-ID: <010001745065426d-097daf26-8257-4b71-b504-e281734cfed6-000000@email.amazonses.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_9544FF84-5626-4BBA-B708-B8444B6B226A"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 19:57:27 +0000
In-Reply-To: <010001744fa1d4f9-c6c34f02-e5c6-4078-9244-c0bd567ae2a2-000000@email.amazonses.com>
Cc: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
To: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>, =?utf-8?Q?Martin_Bj=C3=B6rklund?= <mbj+ietf@4668.se>
References: <20200901173726.8E404F40785@rfc-editor.org> <20200902.082718.1225293218517439729.id@4668.se> <CABCOCHRTsyju+3e1jUSTzFswpvG5KzARWyQXM_M8AukxJqPkZw@mail.gmail.com> <010001744fa1d4f9-c6c34f02-e5c6-4078-9244-c0bd567ae2a2-000000@email.amazonses.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
X-SES-Outgoing: 2020.09.02-54.240.48.92
Feedback-ID: 1.us-east-1.DKmIRZFhhsBhtmFMNikgwZUWVrODEw9qVcPhqJEI2DA=:AmazonSES
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/QYrxScwcD0hMNWyWqFC5In0nYC8>
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: Wed, 02 Sep 2020 19:57:35 -0000


> On Sep 2, 2020, at 12:24 PM, Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net> wrote:
> 
>     NEW:
> 
>        The default value is “last”, with exception to when used with PUT
>        and the target resource already exists, in which case the default
>        is to replace the target resource without altering its position in the
>        "ordered-by user” list or leaf-list.

The text above allows/suggests that are four “insert” values MAY always be explicitly passed (and presumably processed).  Do we want to support the case where a PUT is used only to move an element?  i.e. the passed “replacement” data is identical to what exists on the server, only the insert/point have an effect?

Or should this strategy be that the insert/point can always be passed (in a PUT for an "ordered-by user” list or leaf-list), but they only have meaning (i.e., are processed) when/if the object is being created, and otherwise ignored?


K.