Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8072 (5131)

Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Wed, 11 October 2017 16:23 UTC

Return-Path: <andy@yumaworks.com>
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 349BC1342C2 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 09:23:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 aLnTLtNdLzgK for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 09:23:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x233.google.com (mail-lf0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4059C1342C0 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 09:23:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x233.google.com with SMTP id a132so2699944lfa.7 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 09:23:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=hTnlox8LZSObEhXKiRrAP/sYH6csSnYeVzu/F9dZ2h0=; b=fRCCq2O4deAjJ/QazcTnmTRGqU1C3KqqHTC+O3KgbT51ZoSTE+9CD+AwrHl81M/04L dfaJKF0m3UbUHJFC9OnIKhEbY57YtgYa6vTQOKsVxhjrnYUD1yOHL/BuI6/gQrZ8V8CC oOyT5i3JfA80gWzdGfPUXLBCKiJZter2g3HX+LoowQJgFe21gvtNQbrVWP4Ey0Amq0RS 51tWoQhgrF4WJnqo4p6ykE4ApPy+8iIzsuUMSb9MdW90XQ6zXx8kYjOEaaWM06Hoqzd5 ppY2qp/13y9kDzX/bwRy76L1AMnD2RSvh5Xw10hYgdYLo+OXino6pkeGT7Y5n/MhbEdt tB0w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=hTnlox8LZSObEhXKiRrAP/sYH6csSnYeVzu/F9dZ2h0=; b=tjT6vSb9cjHHUxD1nJulJ1hl+pSCq96t0iwPMYueUJu9cTbqcEfUHkOknThNMtZgLV qHXaDm5mRSLiC/AoKv1iYTKoH3jvkOs/+wJW1nxUsn1gI4wOMFJ3Axp1yX8YUP8ikJnP uB8uY0d5MWt3TvTelgW2h09/+Qt4KE5OqItE97Nhd2IYNuI3+UnRYh1vQNVNVRbr+lHb +fqAg1Zvv8YOLfR4Dl+j7DE4Cjjuj08Wu3LMl7Jorv9XNzYTMj2ACJ8ETjtB4y4UW4kV UHz3ImW+mKmE4mhCb6NAKL+sgVimwrpB05omnfLPDT/2CmliX+SHw7LIeml29wNdOZYn JAJA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaXI4skw3dyClquthlgzF15jcXCKYxEmnwAoq6Uj5nsfiMTiXOB8 40teefSGjsJ51Hmba/pq04CWT7aharelhx8cZ3XUmQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QB5pw+1cpFZbRrY9IM9x3i30fHKPqEPh5pCZYSk4gi2RN2n+agvrwBovqLlA9fQlvvpDVV//YoUG7TEefrLvMs=
X-Received: by 10.46.4.154 with SMTP id a26mr89724ljf.6.1507739018586; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 09:23:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.150.198 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 09:23:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <37f4923d-ae1d-c215-109a-5caa1e6406ca@cisco.com>
References: <20170928105016.B2A88B81896@rfc-editor.org> <b6c0cf18-eba4-f4e0-4802-bfe524095b57@cisco.com> <F149BE7A-07C8-42CE-92AF-4355E6B409E0@juniper.net> <CABCOCHQQwikChSfgyZHSqtvbra9yfF=dP4DnVOFRj=Q2wGoR-w@mail.gmail.com> <37f4923d-ae1d-c215-109a-5caa1e6406ca@cisco.com>
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 09:23:37 -0700
Message-ID: <CABCOCHR-Tw=YyXucensUS+SobP-=bGCd3MYJ35tD9snt4kbbkQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
Cc: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, "mbj@tail-f.com" <mbj@tail-f.com>, "warren@kumari.net" <warren@kumari.net>, "mjethanandani@gmail.com" <mjethanandani@gmail.com>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c1ce05e9dfec4055b47d8bb"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/WxKRbHsT_S1ECd5KrXE208IILzI>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8072 (5131)
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <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, 11 Oct 2017 16:23:43 -0000

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 11/10/2017 17:08, Andy Bierman wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 8:36 AM, Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> I think the existing text is correct.  If the resource instance doesn't
>> exist, it can only be created.  If it doesn't exist, then it cannot be
>> merged, replaced, deleted, or removed.
>>
>> Kent (co-author)
>>
>> --
>>
>> Dear YANG Patch Media Type authors,
>>
>> What do you think of this proposed errata?
>>
>>
> looks OK
>
> Do you mean the existing text looks OK, or the errata looks OK?
>

errata


>
> Thanks,
> Rob
>
>
>
>
> Andy
>
>
>> Regards, B.
>> > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8072,
>> > "YANG Patch Media Type".
>> >
>> > --------------------------------------
>> > You may review the report below and at:
>> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rfc-
>> 2Deditor.org_errata_eid5131&d=DwICaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0U
>> jBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjI
>> SlaJdcZo&m=KLQjPIYskU70WRcZ0nCQYZ4njobUB-tkMpQKKEBb8eE&s=5Hh
>> VTU7yZdrq0Ztpkqoqb2_yUmZJ9pk7jGCpEDJSLr0&e=
>> >
>> > --------------------------------------
>> > Type: Technical
>> > Reported by: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
>> >
>> > Section: 2.2
>> >
>> > Original Text
>> > -------------
>> > Regarding section 2.2 of RFC 8072, the third paragraph states:
>> >
>> >
>> >                                         ... If the edit does not
>> identify
>> >      any existing resource instance and the operation for the edit is
>> not
>> >      "create", then the request MUST NOT be processed and a "404 Not
>> >      Found" error response MUST be sent by the server.
>> >
>> > Corrected Text
>> > --------------
>> >                                        ... If the edit does not identify
>> >     any existing resource instance and the operation for the edit is
>> >     "delete" or "move" then the request MUST NOT be processed and a
>> >     "404 Not Found" error response MUST be sent by the server.
>> >
>> > Notes
>> > -----
>> > As per the second paragraph of section 2.2 of RFC 8072, the operations
>> are expected to mirror the semantics of the "operation" attribute described
>> in Section 7.2 of [RFC6241].
>> >
>> > The spec also doesn't specify what happens if it is a "create"
>> operation and the resource already exists.  It should probably also state
>> that "400 Bad Request" is returned.
>> >
>> > 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.
>> >
>> > --------------------------------------
>> > RFC8072 (draft-ietf-netconf-yang-patch-14)
>> > --------------------------------------
>> > Title               : YANG Patch Media Type
>> > Publication Date    : February 2017
>> > Author(s)           : A. Bierman, M. Bjorklund, K. Watsen
>> > Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
>> > Source              : Network Configuration
>> > Area                : Operations and Management
>> > Stream              : IETF
>> > Verifying Party     : IESG
>> > .
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>