IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netconf] Trouble with RFC 8040 (Restconf) fields Query Parameter

Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com> Fri, 08 May 2020 18:38 UTC

Return-Path: <hrogge@gmail.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 4423A3A11D5 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 May 2020 11:38:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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=gmail.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 cq4YtjzyDDYe for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 May 2020 11:38:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x244.google.com (mail-lj1-x244.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::244]) (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 D815D3A0944 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 May 2020 11:38:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x244.google.com with SMTP id e25so2715686ljg.5 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 08 May 2020 11:38:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Hqwk6zHWGqlA8Xc/bjj1LdigNt7jMvdnIssDUXRn9zY=; b=N5Im0Nlu7vOuZCkw73YsEnDFtFzd/NuFO+Rmb4eBOz5csgH2CdvT25ylecRC6bG5ka GkcWLvT5RudXnRuyIg7in0btlVnkCObKrZzzlmVX9ZItHJ3iOGnvF1Uf/hZvj7psJ1cr FuADMCgyj7HR4EE+pKUzSRYDTpH4LHYVJneErIAy8bOFpB4lgrzC1xzo7qrJ3Z8lvQ9y +FuWra4vEuxOVTp3MyMfY4FR+0BzQ7Tw/p8qrzP90uwqJ0tKWwV74kmQguwer5uUlMW6 zzpdEKVqRzg/twlbA70H5KbNdQy6Eqh3Tu9/o9vU2hn9GkeY8c+JbF3KvDASC784VBLP Mu9A==
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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Hqwk6zHWGqlA8Xc/bjj1LdigNt7jMvdnIssDUXRn9zY=; b=dRekz3EDbRygEfrdWMzEL3Tx2DsP8ehy09F+2XW7hVAQ2rhVgyrSaBj+okn72FRFTd ocrUOV5u8MLgwyn9sSnHq/4q1mlrgDwZUQipoBimI/L7iLzWsw2/Xwolu6jGVVJXgA/F rvFghTlWbaU6VSxj7TZ3JYebDib8yHcPsFxnjXfuNnA8KhTHk0BJzrGEQKthnVX0yYYP /R9B1AqKa2NV/6IIy7N6Oyp7zt/QWVmJr3mG0xzU58shwCxRd2HNl2B6MTqqHnRQ7vJU fA3kJnSoRXKrj+iQXFIuuvkXnEvOXiJxEHpODARBzpY3anIKUm5ghmZlEs8DnoFJ7Cy2 2oDQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530ah7C29SMIsT1tY9pMIFHv3XlBvDYrtQgUgzisuC0LgEe91d1v hCnegj63UMuu8dsEY3yuoFIQ20x6sLoVKukEaFo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzq57HFQRe22/2jMz+czVPYG0q1Sryzm6DI0na8LrEw0gKWPTnXNmnWQWWU4agvXbZeZlY4m3wXb7kiZESv/gg=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:8658:: with SMTP id i24mr2417824ljj.287.1588963095157; Fri, 08 May 2020 11:38:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAGnRvup-pLVYgxAx7PnbJJ1gS-GTkD6t5jGD_Ayhh7ctpPothw@mail.gmail.com> <CAGnRvuq=ESLkeyWsgiqE9sXqFwHGUef3A4QRuW=H8ompVO3C4Q@mail.gmail.com> <20200414.222236.518728457229433184.id@4668.se> <CAGnRvurVJBHbRbwtnLXQFeSrDUFSGKWhL1UUjUDjw5-Gc44ozg@mail.gmail.com> <9C6D0A8A-2BD4-4578-8CB3-6969078CE10A@gmail.com> <CAGnRvupBeUnmpTLmeNR7y3Ycb22Jkngo=kfssNFfxHndxxEfPQ@mail.gmail.com> <20BA9136-0FC6-4CAC-BF59-89FC16DB583E@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20BA9136-0FC6-4CAC-BF59-89FC16DB583E@gmail.com>
From: Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 08 May 2020 20:37:48 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGnRvuoY9qa7i0nJQ-sgJ6A_krEX9XFd3+bMzi3RnDYpyv8Oiw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
Cc: Martin Björklund <mbj+ietf@4668.se>, Netconf <netconf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/bK9GN2dM69vqERiS_1ANumZZCX0>
Subject: Re: [netconf] Trouble with RFC 8040 (Restconf) fields Query Parameter
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: Fri, 08 May 2020 18:38:22 -0000

On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 8:07 PM Mahesh Jethanandani
<mjethanandani@gmail.com> wrote:
> The implementation in ODL does not care what order the query is placed in. Even if the bracket part of the query is placed in the last field, when it builds up the hash index for the search, the bracketed parts can appear anywhere based on how it gets hashed.

Not sure about my implementation, I have to look at the code... but I
think all test cases should be within the specification, because an
implementation might have found a reason to care about it.

Henning

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email