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

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Wed, 11 October 2017 06:56 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.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 701191321C7 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 23:56:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 5g_TZsVqnKUu for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 23:56:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41B5D13202D for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 23:56:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2342; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1507704999; x=1508914599; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2h7PtMzvby2M+Tx0uAwAHszvv1LMTdUDf9ok5G88HsQ=; b=XW+UGKlY/tRtcV7ixBL5i1864t+nxDSAJptAoI3S4Sk+7QVFugsiCO4z GtH2WfOUcE9CSHufXmTKd8H72SQnPlHWG6p5U4ZupV7/XHotXF8SjPlgh dfEvIyAnLdKd65HOdBT5Cab73pUR3heyGD4d/HR73PVbKjor572ArwfcX E=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.43,360,1503360000"; d="scan'208";a="656286727"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 11 Oct 2017 06:56:37 +0000
Received: from [10.55.221.36] (ams-bclaise-nitro3.cisco.com [10.55.221.36]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v9B6ubuI016169; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 06:56:37 GMT
To: andy@yumaworks.com, mbj@tail-f.com, kwatsen@juniper.net, warren@kumari.net, mjethanandani@gmail.com
Cc: rwilton@cisco.com, netconf@ietf.org
References: <20170928105016.B2A88B81896@rfc-editor.org>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <b6c0cf18-eba4-f4e0-4802-bfe524095b57@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 08:56:37 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170928105016.B2A88B81896@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/YATMF89RZGm1LIBJoSJAjAIM1jM>
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 06:56:41 -0000

Dear YANG Patch Media Type authors,

What do you think of this proposed errata?

Regards, B.
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8072,
> "YANG Patch Media Type".
>
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5131
>
> --------------------------------------
> 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
> .
>