Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6241 (5401)

Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> Thu, 21 June 2018 10:58 UTC

Return-Path: <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
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 D9ECD13120D for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 03:58:26 -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, 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 f_lJsem7w7Yz for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 03:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from anna.localdomain (anna.eecs.jacobs-university.de [IPv6:2001:638:709:5::7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90B60131216 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 03:58:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by anna.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 501) id AE9D2228700E; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 12:58:21 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 12:58:20 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: rob.enns@gmail.com, mbj@tail-f.com, andy@yumaworks.com, ibagdona@gmail.com, warren@kumari.net, kwatsen@juniper.net, mjethanandani@gmail.com, rohitrranade@huawei.com, netconf@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20180621105820.h2cgt62zt3vp64kj@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
Mail-Followup-To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, rob.enns@gmail.com, mbj@tail-f.com, andy@yumaworks.com, ibagdona@gmail.com, warren@kumari.net, kwatsen@juniper.net, mjethanandani@gmail.com, rohitrranade@huawei.com, netconf@ietf.org
References: <20180621091736.90B64B80C14@rfc-editor.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180621091736.90B64B80C14@rfc-editor.org>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180512
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/eNkoD4lBJE-KbZ8cXqOHuYQHJmA>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6241 (5401)
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 10:58:27 -0000

On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 02:17:36AM -0700, RFC Errata System wrote:
> Notes
> -----
> It is unclear what is the meaning of "invalid-value" "error". Since the xpath will be part of "select" attribute, we can assume that a server can return a "bad-attribute" error-tag and having error-message indicating invalid-value for the attribute. This clarifies the <error-tag> to be used in such cases.
> In other places, where error-tag has been mentioned, it is clear that "invalid-value" <error-tag> must be used.
>

The "invalid-value" error tag is defined in Appendix A and there are
also examples in section 4.3 showing how this error tag is used.
People who search for "invalid-value" in the RFC should likely figure
our what is meant by '"invalid-value" error'. That said, if this
deserves fixing, then it deserves fixing everywhere where this phrase
occurs and not in just a single place (I counted three occurances of
this phrase).

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>