[netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040 (6215)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Thu, 25 June 2020 14:12 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
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 B0D8A3A0B8C for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jun 2020 07:12:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 kC-qNIJu_Hg2 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jun 2020 07:12:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C6D83A0B83 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jun 2020 07:12:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 15C80F40711; Thu, 25 Jun 2020 07:12:01 -0700 (PDT)
To: andy@yumaworks.com, mbj@tail-f.com, kwatsen@juniper.net, warren@kumari.net, rwilton@cisco.com, kent+ietf@watsen.net, mjethanandani@gmail.com
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: kent+ietf@watsen.net, netconf@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Message-Id: <20200625141201.15C80F40711@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2020 07:12:01 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/_odXdXyw0SFlavKHoFnMOyvD3ks>
Subject: [netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040 (6215)
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: Thu, 25 Jun 2020 14:12:16 -0000

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/eid6215

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>

Section: 4.3

Original Text
-------------
   If a retrieval request for a data resource representing a YANG
   leaf-list or list object identifies more than one instance and XML
   encoding is used in the response, then an error response containing a
   "400 Bad Request" status-line MUST be returned by the server.  The
   error-tag value "invalid-value" is used in this case.  Note that a
   non-configuration list is not required to define any keys.  In this
   case, the retrieval of a single list instance is not possible.


Corrected Text
--------------


Notes
-----
This whole paragraph should be removed because, according to Section 3.5 (Data Resource), the "list" and "leaf-leaf" themselves are not a data resources:

   A data resource represents a YANG data node that is a descendant node
   of a datastore resource.  Each YANG-defined data node can be uniquely
   targeted by the request-line of an HTTP method.  Containers, leafs,
   leaf-list entries, list entries, anydata nodes, and anyxml nodes are
   data resources.

No GET, PUT, POST, DELETE, or PATCH example in the RFC illustrates an operation on a "list" or "leaf-list" directly (i.e., without a key, which would then represent an element of the list or leaf-list).

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