Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8072 (5131)

Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Wed, 11 October 2017 16:08 UTC

Return-Path: <andy@yumaworks.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 90E5D134234 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 09:08:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 18wjr5xw3wJK for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 09:08:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x232.google.com (mail-lf0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::232]) (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 5C0E413202D for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 09:08:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x232.google.com with SMTP id b190so2646789lfg.9 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 09:08:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Fh/+XjYglGLssZLwkUEZlv7jbyCMpJrzNQShgc7ifok=; b=bM11vFJ5lWuq+aBORV5QWZh51uXnhHy3WoPfI32Cg7syeU367PosNnivbKEQ0UlqqP zknNV1E3wJTmc05sJicVK+EdOcQaTFc5Yfy861qAbjAvoBDWiRXcffavbXGLR5it4u9F v1wqde49iCHqFHl+jf5B5Bzr+N9itBDB9TbZ1ZhGhiDcMuMUbnRWyewkpcHHSbXxXOId OuukXX2cJoaZ6WyRUNtMoQlU4O5OW8QibsgCyGagKBPg4+96+8xDOZR7zSqvPkucDEcV W6DpXjzWMDbqN0p31HsG0+PJqbneOymlTScHO/F4Z1/1GZDb+hZnD9VSPIM/YTnMvPcT SwlA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Fh/+XjYglGLssZLwkUEZlv7jbyCMpJrzNQShgc7ifok=; b=W8OUXgQ6N4N0N2zGOy4j3tPT4lXub7UA36xeb5L/+ymUFvSHQylevd6C5WG7sotYhx VrfXIl3E01PKgwoeB2lU+ZhGg/btLz/GDmNfI6BsbIBp0S4blk6IUiE0TiwhrgiWhSHE XrI+gJYBiDAW6lLaJPNtmTp7cBd2zm+socUU7P5z+i3vendnuPUsfK28votZdb8Qb1ir KXER1+cUbmmC7TwVS8qQF1kjeh7xmLwgLlpomdlAWVdeKcUTHO994Qn/1CVyeOM4TAnw YHMgX12LUX4GDPtgRyTjpiKg4fHaYezGzKVG8U1ApECUo3lCNF1ZPmBmxnXJdLDiUsCW NT4w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaXQL84ODcnu0wviWV+01WNsmW2KoTlChe2hnjIxrf0bPoHQTLWe 6hyBElXISqw5nNU6Ib6HQCULCHl93n3dRssu6wAbVw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+RMqDMCBYRhKqxj6LbCWm0zgMJ4o7Vi6EGFo8g/X1q26lrrGtL6R5kkYpy8/tAZ7G32wC2sXX1D6ivnSueA6eg=
X-Received: by 10.25.156.66 with SMTP id f63mr42732lfe.194.1507738129648; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 09:08:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.150.198 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 09:08:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <F149BE7A-07C8-42CE-92AF-4355E6B409E0@juniper.net>
References: <20170928105016.B2A88B81896@rfc-editor.org> <b6c0cf18-eba4-f4e0-4802-bfe524095b57@cisco.com> <F149BE7A-07C8-42CE-92AF-4355E6B409E0@juniper.net>
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 09:08:48 -0700
Message-ID: <CABCOCHQQwikChSfgyZHSqtvbra9yfF=dP4DnVOFRj=Q2wGoR-w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>
Cc: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, "mbj@tail-f.com" <mbj@tail-f.com>, "warren@kumari.net" <warren@kumari.net>, "mjethanandani@gmail.com" <mjethanandani@gmail.com>, "rwilton@cisco.com" <rwilton@cisco.com>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11411bc6a1e277055b47a350"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/kcZJhFajE8RqdopPVAlFVL5Y8fE>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8072 (5131)
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 16:08:53 -0000

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 8:36 AM, Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net> wrote:

>
> I think the existing text is correct.  If the resource instance doesn't
> exist, it can only be created.  If it doesn't exist, then it cannot be
> merged, replaced, deleted, or removed.
>
> Kent (co-author)
>
> --
>
> Dear YANG Patch Media Type authors,
>
> What do you think of this proposed errata?
>
>
looks OK


Andy


> Regards, B.
> > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8072,
> > "YANG Patch Media Type".
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > You may review the report below and at:
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rfc-
> 2Deditor.org_errata_eid5131&d=DwICaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-
> ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=
> KLQjPIYskU70WRcZ0nCQYZ4njobUB-tkMpQKKEBb8eE&s=5HhVTU7yZdrq0Ztpkqoqb2_
> yUmZJ9pk7jGCpEDJSLr0&e=
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > Type: Technical
> > Reported by: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
> >
> > Section: 2.2
> >
> > Original Text
> > -------------
> > Regarding section 2.2 of RFC 8072, the third paragraph states:
> >
> >
> >                                         ... If the edit does not identify
> >      any existing resource instance and the operation for the edit is not
> >      "create", then the request MUST NOT be processed and a "404 Not
> >      Found" error response MUST be sent by the server.
> >
> > Corrected Text
> > --------------
> >                                        ... If the edit does not identify
> >     any existing resource instance and the operation for the edit is
> >     "delete" or "move" then the request MUST NOT be processed and a
> >     "404 Not Found" error response MUST be sent by the server.
> >
> > Notes
> > -----
> > As per the second paragraph of section 2.2 of RFC 8072, the operations
> are expected to mirror the semantics of the "operation" attribute described
> in Section 7.2 of [RFC6241].
> >
> > The spec also doesn't specify what happens if it is a "create" operation
> and the resource already exists.  It should probably also state that "400
> Bad Request" is returned.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > RFC8072 (draft-ietf-netconf-yang-patch-14)
> > --------------------------------------
> > Title               : YANG Patch Media Type
> > Publication Date    : February 2017
> > Author(s)           : A. Bierman, M. Bjorklund, K. Watsen
> > Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> > Source              : Network Configuration
> > Area                : Operations and Management
> > Stream              : IETF
> > Verifying Party     : IESG
> > .
> >
>
>
>
>