IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040 (5565)

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Mon, 03 December 2018 10:20 UTC

Return-Path: <mbj@tail-f.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 F3DA1130E3E for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Dec 2018 02:20:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-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 4J8lHeJb6oTY for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Dec 2018 02:20:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48FFE130DDA for <netconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Dec 2018 02:20:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (h-39-108.A165.priv.bahnhof.se [213.136.39.108]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1E33F1AE0386; Mon, 3 Dec 2018 11:20:22 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2018 11:20:21 +0100
Message-Id: <20181203.112021.415049598342701506.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de
Cc: bill.wu@huawei.com, ibagdona@gmail.com, netconf@ietf.org, warren@kumari.net, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <20181203101400.ua4s7jlhaxoeyp3o@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
References: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA9B177661@nkgeml513-mbs.china.huawei.com> <20181203.104808.838283353261944785.mbj@tail-f.com> <20181203101400.ua4s7jlhaxoeyp3o@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 25.2 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/XfoOpKslbdbGbX8HZrQHtNRvVkw>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040 (5565)
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 03 Dec 2018 10:20:27 -0000

Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 10:48:08AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > 
> > So, maybe the proper fix is
> > 
> >                | data-missing            | 404, 409           |
> >
> 
> And then you hope that different implementors will come to the same
> conclusions when to return 404 or 409. I have some doubts that this
> will work well...

Yes, I started to write that we also need additional text to explain
this.  But that would probably be too much for an errata.


> Are there implementations that return 404 for data-missing today?

I'm pretty sure that all implementations return 404 if someone tries
to DELETE a non-existing resource, which in NETCONF would be a
"data-missing" reply to an edit-config.

But it is not quite clear if the table in section 7 of RFC 8040 is
supposed to be used in this case...



/martin



> 
> /js
> 
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email