Re: [netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040 (6362)

[Muly Ilan <[e-mail]>]

Hi Andy,

You are saying that the text in Appendix B.3.1 is wrong. Understood.

Please note that there's a specific example for "content=all" in Appendix B.3.1.  In this example the "ETag" and "Last-Modified" header fields are not used.
I was looking for a well-defined behavior for all the three options of the "content" query parameter.

Thanks,

Muly

From: Andy Bierman [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: 22/12/2020 16:58
To: RFC Errata System <[e-mail]>
Cc: Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]>; Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>; Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>; Robert Wilton <[e-mail]>; Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>; Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]>; Muly Ilan <[e-mail]>; Netconf <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040 (6362)

Hi,

This Errata should be rejected.
The cited text in non-normative Appendix B.3.1 is actually wrong.
The parameter content=all can also return these fields for configuration data.


The normative text in 3.5.2 explains what to do.


3.5.2<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Frfc8040%23section-3.5.2&data=04%7C01%7Cmuly_i%40rad.com%7C35e8783752fa459ae98a08d8a689f57a%7Cf9047108cc2c4e4897a343fad1b3bf9d%7C1%7C0%7C637442458750543741%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=7z9T58Li8GDhW2ctfforl%2BtjSz5EwWrCC6UQE6paC2Y%3D&reserved=0>.  Entity-Tag





   For configuration data resources, the server SHOULD maintain a

   resource entity-tag for each resource and return the "ETag" header

   field when it is retrieved as the target resource with the GET or

   HEAD methods.  If maintained, the resource entity-tag MUST be updated

   whenever the resource or any configuration resource within the

   resource is altered.  If not maintained, then the resource entity-tag

   for the datastore MUST be used instead.


Andy

On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 6:34 AM RFC Errata System <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
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/eid6362<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Ferrata%2Feid6362&data=04%7C01%7Cmuly_i%40rad.com%7C35e8783752fa459ae98a08d8a689f57a%7Cf9047108cc2c4e4897a343fad1b3bf9d%7C1%7C0%7C637442458750553733%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=%2BGo3kt4FmuA6g6PMoXDD1jbziLdLZpO6OerPIfiNRBU%3D&reserved=0>

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Muly Ilan <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>

Section: 4.3.

Original Text
-------------
   The client might request the response header fields for an XML
   representation of a specific "album" resource:

      GET /restconf/data/example-jukebox:jukebox/\
         library/artist=Foo%20Fighters/album=Wasting%20Light HTTP/1.1
      Host: example.com<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fexample.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cmuly_i%40rad.com%7C35e8783752fa459ae98a08d8a689f57a%7Cf9047108cc2c4e4897a343fad1b3bf9d%7C1%7C0%7C637442458750553733%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=j6Qv7qb%2Btlq6PVL1JK4l5opCHygcLLZTqPyufDyVtII%3D&reserved=0>
      Accept: application/yang-data+xml

   The server might respond as follows:

      HTTP/1.1 200 OK
      Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 20:56:30 GMT
      Server: example-server
      Content-Type: application/yang-data+xml
      Cache-Control: no-cache
      ETag: "a74eefc993a2b"
      Last-Modified: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 14:02:14 GMT

Corrected Text
--------------
   The client might request the response header fields for an XML
   representation of a specific "album" resource:

      GET /restconf/data/example-jukebox:jukebox/\
         library/artist=Foo%20Fighters/album=Wasting%20Light HTTP/1.1
      Host: example.com<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fexample.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cmuly_i%40rad.com%7C35e8783752fa459ae98a08d8a689f57a%7Cf9047108cc2c4e4897a343fad1b3bf9d%7C1%7C0%7C637442458750563727%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=FsU3K27Uav6bEaRklgGqDr11S5Yp%2FJEzebV5KyF2974%3D&reserved=0>
      Accept: application/yang-data+xml

   The server might respond as follows:

      HTTP/1.1 200 OK
      Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 20:56:30 GMT
      Server: example-server
      Content-Type: application/yang-data+xml
      Cache-Control: no-cache


Notes
-----
Removed the "ETag" and "Last-Modified" header fields.

According to Appendix B.3.1. :
   To retrieve only the configuration child resources, the "content"
   parameter is set to "config".  Note that the "ETag" and
   "Last-Modified" headers are only returned if the "content" parameter
   value is "config".

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