Re: [netconf] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's Discuss on draft-ietf-netconf-sztp-csr-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Thanks for the response. 


> On 15 Dec 2021, at 01:11, Kent Watsen <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Zaheduzzaman,
> 
> Thank you for your review!  Responses to your comments are below.
> 
> Kent // as a co-author
> 
> 
>> On Dec 14, 2021, at 8:23 AM, Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> 
>> Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-netconf-sztp-csr-12: Discuss
>> 
>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>> 
>> 
>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/ <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-fe22d327-454445555731-25536b0fc4f2f08a&q=1&e=8bdc1b3f-3bb5-4977-b0cc-2ef6b2d2f69c&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fblog%2Fhandling-iesg-ballot-positions%2F>
>> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>> 
>> 
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-sztp-csr/ <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-fe22d327-454445555731-0d29f8eb2e6170be&q=1&e=8bdc1b3f-3bb5-4977-b0cc-2ef6b2d2f69c&u=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-netconf-sztp-csr%2F>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> DISCUSS:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> I would like to discuss two points -
>> 
>>  - as this specification add more detailed response for HTTP 400 Bad Request
>>  error code. I would like to know if RFC7807 has been considered for such
>>  usage.
> 
> 
> The authors did not know about RFC 7807.  Thank you for bringing it to our attention.
> 
> Looking at RFC 7807, we do not believe that we should use it because:
>   - an SZTP-server (RFC 8572) is a RESTCONF-server (RFC 8040)
>   - RESTCONF defines it’s own mechanism for structure responses
>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8040#section-7.1 <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-fe22d327-454445555731-ba8856b8a30df5a9&q=1&e=8bdc1b3f-3bb5-4977-b0cc-2ef6b2d2f69c&u=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Frfc8040%23section-7.1>.
> 
> This comment would have been good when RFC 8040 was being published, but
> now it is water over the bridge, so to speak.  Agreed?
Ok I get it. I am now thinking if it is worth mention this fact in the draft. My main point was that RFC7807 is more a generic HTTP way to send details about problem which this specification is using hence might need motivation for why not RFC 7807 is used, specially looking the discussion on this topic in the mailing list. 
> 
> 
>>  - is this specification defining new media type "application/yang.data+json"?
>>  and would ask why? It could very well use "application/problem+json" or
>>  "application/problem+xml" from RFC7807 or even "application/yang-data+json".
> 
> Aye!  This is a typo.   It should be "application/yang-data+json”, which is defined
> In RFC 8040 here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8040#section-11.3.2 <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-fe22d327-454445555731-c734ee8eb53f95cf&q=1&e=8bdc1b3f-3bb5-4977-b0cc-2ef6b2d2f69c&u=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Frfc8040%23section-11.3.2>.
> 
> I have fixed this typo here: https://github.com/netconf-wg/sztp-csr/commit/7d62548f36b2bc325533c6d6a362900badc5301b <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-fe22d327-454445555731-23a44a3c4c1031e7&q=1&e=8bdc1b3f-3bb5-4977-b0cc-2ef6b2d2f69c&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fnetconf-wg%2Fsztp-csr%2Fcommit%2F7d62548f36b2bc325533c6d6a362900badc5301b>
> 
> An I-D update is pending a few more IESG-reviews.
> 
> Good?
Very good.

//Zahed
> 
> 
>