Re: [netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6243 (7426)

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 9:55 AM Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi Andy, Dylan,
>
>
>
> I don’t think that the proposed text is quite right, but there might be
> something worth clarifying here.
>
>
>
> I.e., I believe that I understand what section 2.3.1 is meaning, but it
> doesn’t define what to do for default values that haven’t been explicit set
> by the client.  I.e., arguably, it looks servers are free to choose whether
> to include or not include data nodes with a default value that haven’t been
> set by the client (which I don’t think is the intent).  Note, the logically
> equivalent section in 3.3 is more explicit that they MUST NOT be reported:
>
>
>
> <quote>
>
> *3.3 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6243#section-3.3>.  'explicit'
> Retrieval Mode*
>
>
>
>    When data is retrieved with a <with-defaults> parameter equal to
>
>    'explicit', a data node that was set by a client to its schema
>
>    default value MUST be reported.  A conceptual data node that would be
>
>    set by the server to the schema default value MUST NOT be reported.
>
>    Non-configuration data nodes containing the schema default value MUST
>
>    be reported.
>
> <end quote>
>
>
>
> Hence, I’m wondering whether section 2.3.1 should take this sentence from
> section 3.3:  “A conceptual data node that would be
>
>    set by the server to the schema default value MUST NOT be reported.”, i.e.,
> actually read something like:
>
>
>
> <proposed>
>
> *2.3.1 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6243#section-2.3.1>.  'explicit' Basic Mode Retrieval*
>
>
>
>    When data is retrieved from a server using the 'explicit' basic mode,
>
>    and the <with-defaults> parameter is not present, data nodes MUST be
>
>    reported if explicitly set by the client, even if they contain the
>
>    schema default value.  A conceptual data node that would be set by
>
>    the server to the schema default value MUST NOT be reported.
>
>    Non-configuration data nodes containing the schema default value MUST
>
>    be reported.
>
> <end proposed>
>
>
>
> Dylan, is this what you were trying to clarify?  Andy, does this change
> your opinion?
>
>
>


Your change to 2.3.1 is consistent with WG intent, so no objection.



> Thanks,
>
> Rob
>

Andy


>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* 18 April 2023 17:18
> *To:* RFC Errata System <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Rob Wilton
> (rwilton) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6243 (7426)
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> This Errata should be rejected.
>
> The intent in section 2.3.1 is that all explicitly set data is returned.
>
> The proposed new text does not reflect this intent.
>
>
>
> There is a subtle difference between a server using the YANG default value
> because no instance exists
>
> and a server creating an instance that equals the YANG default value.  The
> server implementation
>
> needs to distinguish between them. The "create" and "delete" edit
> operations are impacted by this distinction.
>
>
>
>
>
> Andy
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 5:35 AM RFC Errata System <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6243,
> "With-defaults Capability for NETCONF".
>
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7426
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Dylan Sadoun <[e-mail]>
>
> Section: 2.3.1
>
> Original Text
> -------------
> When data is retrieved from a server using the 'explicit' basic mode, and
> the <with-defaults> parameter is not present, data nodes MUST be reported
> if explicitly set by the client, even if they contain the schema default
> value. Non-configuration data nodes containing the schema default value
> MUST be reported.
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> When data is retrieved from a server using the 'explicit' basic mode, and
> the <with-defaults> parameter is not present, data nodes MUST be reported
> if explicitly set. This means that data nodes containing the schema default
> value MUST be reported if set by a NETCONF client, but MUST NOT be reported
> if set by the NETCONF server. Data nodes set by the NETCONF server to
> values other than their schema default values MUST be reported.
> Non-configuration data nodes containing the schema default value MUST be
> reported.
>
> Notes
> -----
> The RFC defines "Explicitly set data" for the sole purpose of defining the
> explicit retrieval mode. This definition is clear about when data set by
> the server should be considered "explicitly set" i.e. when not set to the
> schema default value. However, the 2.3.1 and 3.3 sections are ambiguous and
> prone to misunderstanding, as they only emphasise the "set by the client"
> case, which leads to think that data set by the server to a value different
> from its schema default value should not be reported.
> This erratum is for the 2.3.1 section.
>
> 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.
>
> --------------------------------------
> RFC6243 (draft-ietf-netconf-with-defaults-14)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : With-defaults Capability for NETCONF
> Publication Date    : June 2011
> Author(s)           : A. Bierman, B. Lengyel
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : Network Configuration
> Area                : Operations and Management
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG
>
>