Re: [netconf] Question on restconf empty list reply
Olof Hagsand <olof@hagsand.se> Tue, 25 February 2020 20:02 UTC
Return-Path: <olof@hagsand.se>
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 7272A3A1419 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 12:02:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 PxcrZEUXY-Sm for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 12:02:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp2.outgoing.loopia.se (smtp2.outgoing.loopia.se [93.188.3.37]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F4313A131D for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 12:02:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from s807.loopia.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by s807.loopia.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDAA12E778B7 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 21:02:28 +0100 (CET)
Received: from s630.loopia.se (unknown [172.22.191.5]) by s807.loopia.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEC3A2E27FAF; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 21:02:28 +0100 (CET)
Received: from s474.loopia.se (unknown [172.22.191.6]) by s630.loopia.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id B30A913ABEC7; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 21:02:28 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amavis.loopia.se
Received: from s498.loopia.se ([172.22.191.6]) by s474.loopia.se (s474.loopia.se [172.22.190.14]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id p8NpDzpWxVFr; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 21:02:28 +0100 (CET)
X-Loopia-Auth: user
X-Loopia-User: olof@hagsand.se
X-Loopia-Originating-IP: 85.227.89.255
Received: from [10.0.0.14] (ua-85-227-89-255.bbcust.telenor.se [85.227.89.255]) (Authenticated sender: olof@hagsand.se) by s498.loopia.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 17611470830; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 21:02:28 +0100 (CET)
To: Martin Björklund <mbj+ietf@4668.se>
Cc: netconf@ietf.org
References: <4bca4ca8-0d9f-d986-4521-5c808a6e8a4d@hagsand.se> <20200224.201727.524298611078512416.id@4668.se>
From: Olof Hagsand <olof@hagsand.se>
Message-ID: <70fdf9ba-9b48-8cba-a3c2-1366b5a37a8f@hagsand.se>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 21:02:27 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200224.201727.524298611078512416.id@4668.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/ewvD_d-vk0JZfXbn0T8KE6AikQg>
Subject: Re: [netconf] Question on restconf empty list reply
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: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 20:02:38 -0000
On 2020-02-24 20:17, Martin Björklund wrote: > Hi, > > Olof Hagsand <olof@hagsand.se> wrote: >> Hello, >> In a restconf GET request of an empty YANG list using JSON encoding, >> what is the expected reply? I.e. using a yang list "x" in module "m" >> (pseudo http): >> GET /restconf/data/m:x >> Accept: application/yang-data+json >> >> Is the reply (1): >> HTTP/1.1 200 OK >> { >> "m:x": [] >> } >> >> or should it be (2) >> "404 Not Found" status-line and error-tag value "invalid-value"? > > It should be 404, even if the list contains some entries. The reason > for this is that there is no resource for the list itself, only for > list entries. See section 3.5 of RFC 8040. > > We used to have "collections" for this use case, but it was never finished. OK, I find that explanation semantically sound, although somewhat disappointing from a usability perspective. But it makes sense and avoids the pitfalls of differences between non-existent and empty lists, for example. But as mentioned elsewhere, I then find paragraph 5 of section 3.5 of RFC 8040 confusing at best, or even irrelevant, if this is the correct interpretation. Thanks. --Olof > > > /martin > > >> >> Apologizes that this is a basic question, and I am sure this is resolved >> properly, but we have some discussions with users on how to properly >> interpret the description of GET in RFC 8040 Section 4.3 and RFC 7951. >> >> Regards, >> Olof Hagsand, >> Clixon maintainer >> >> _______________________________________________ >> netconf mailing list >> netconf@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
- [netconf] Question on restconf empty list reply Olof Hagsand
- Re: [netconf] Question on restconf empty list rep… Schönwälder
- Re: [netconf] Question on restconf empty list rep… Olof Hagsand
- Re: [netconf] Question on restconf empty list rep… Kent Watsen
- Re: [netconf] Question on restconf empty list rep… Martin Björklund
- Re: [netconf] Question on restconf empty list rep… Kent Watsen
- Re: [netconf] Question on restconf empty list rep… Sterne, Jason (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [netconf] Question on restconf empty list rep… Martin Björklund
- Re: [netconf] Question on restconf empty list rep… Martin Björklund
- Re: [netconf] Question on restconf empty list rep… Olof Hagsand
- Re: [netconf] Question on restconf empty list rep… Kent Watsen