Re: [netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040 (5761)

Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Mon, 24 June 2019 12:59 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 89AA8120157 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 05:59:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 1h4YFQ5bmPXN for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 05:58:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x12e.google.com (mail-lf1-x12e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12e]) (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 AC744120072 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 05:58:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x12e.google.com with SMTP id j29so9941148lfk.10 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 05:58:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=aMmZsnvZQcJMW4+IZa0uJzDaaWmsiRpFZTASnFeptvY=; b=m2sLe/jg01ZPIJkCdbMA/RGOPX6aDpcZdiO7m7L4neYn7tmYD9YUdMpx0vDOssYbYw opKVnOuIBSoUSrBlX/2BDq/AroFmYfrYLxj64VrDcWY9mKPre6QL3l6RqdFWqLRrd/Q2 61kIdJR9a2Qiz6mEhwB1to12c3o6fQCuyI7nnUjQJi1VD24/76rKZQqlfsBH4rY7kddo 5LjfMP4B0EeFFRaGTF4zYXrYEkUFQn0F1RU1uzc20shPhg9CzQNH6w/lv9lEd0gOZRnI YuqZVnwpnDb0SsWXY6iyz8VnhClmr61in1L2PePOsyYn8uxkdqeWCAgfvb1QGMIEfCal n+oQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=aMmZsnvZQcJMW4+IZa0uJzDaaWmsiRpFZTASnFeptvY=; b=KSBCdf2kWfYUZDkKNhSVeGM6Du6jsXijwRoG95lkzGSGdwc1BMvH/fbwSg1xNfj7p5 Q6p/qWCjdeHXhmZ1om4S8M6R2i0mUwbH3rEtvoKXT1eKTUQ2trkB/Q1T5esAh9GGd2p9 0v10hnEazyf/ts8x+1XAO3CMcLJa3Pvbk25fvqVDBtxKZXOoL+RwR8FnLJUt+ZYvxQED AzZ37eRrQ2McZM3mEG9IfxBwBFvYWPNSVobfY5hszG6AmJ251GK/D2swC4d+DW5vILXb 5guc5GlhFkMWp5qLZKu8NUwGoHrp92LlV90Gour0/GPvDUV8WwnzQXVPSuMOhs/kxsrv C2rA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWhHC/7xWC5bTuRbhX+sooqDX/UGLZHPP3F9v8tVuOoaH/IQfNK OJnUOD1joD1hTDBJVFbta2JLryXMoQv1pU8dDydOqA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw0BhA0QVbsH6v3hvB6IRSkofJhb0gyrfPE6pgIcGKHQ6K3/zoSaLWd0HKRfhsU3+ckK8A3uaci1+//wb9FWJM=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:ec15:: with SMTP id b21mr31443879lfa.32.1561381135659; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 05:58:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190624010833.72B56B80D5C@rfc-editor.org>
In-Reply-To: <20190624010833.72B56B80D5C@rfc-editor.org>
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 05:58:44 -0700
Message-ID: <CABCOCHQxLQE=Gvnty-3B4dQ_J0D9kRVYAMgi-JWfJnEaRDrCHQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>, Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, Ignas Bagdonas <ibagdona@gmail.com>, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>, Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>, Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>, Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>, Netconf <netconf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f350c7058c115f67"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/YpaIiqqbCCAcn0z4GFltRMh6fQE>
Subject: Re: [netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040 (5761)
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: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 12:59:01 -0000

Hi,

The cited text is in 4.4.1 (there is no 4.1.1).

I do not see any evidence that the WG intended to write the word
"data-exists" but
wrote "resource-denied" instead. Therefore this cannot be changed with an
errata.


Andy


On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 6:08 PM RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
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/eid5761
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Qin WU <bill.wu@huawei.com>
>
> Section: 4.1.1
>
> Original Text
> -------------
> If the data resource already exists, then the POST request MUST fail
> and a "409 Conflict" status-line MUST be returned.  The error-tag
> value "resource-denied" is used in this case
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> If the data resource already exists, then the POST request MUST fail
> and a "409 Conflict" status-line MUST be returned.  The error-tag
> value "data-exists" is used in this case
>
> Notes
> -----
> The error-tag value should be corrected as "data-exists" in this case
> based on the context. According to error-tag definition in RFC6241:
>
>    error-tag:      resource-denied
>    error-type:     transport, rpc, protocol, application
>    error-severity: error
>    error-info:     none
>    Description:    Request could not be completed because of
>                    insufficient resources.
>
> It is apparent error-tag value "data-exists" should be corresponding
> to the data resource already exists condition.
>
> 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
>