IETF Logo Mail Archive

[netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8341 (6493)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Wed, 24 March 2021 15:20 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
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 DE2293A2E9A for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 08:20:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-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 WjNLDBsbCmnN for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 08:20:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29AF33A2E98 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 08:20:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 6A2C2F40739; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 08:19:54 -0700 (PDT)
To: andy@yumaworks.com, mbj@tail-f.com, warren@kumari.net, rwilton@cisco.com, kent+ietf@watsen.net, mjethanandani@gmail.com
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 1005:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com, netconf@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20210324151954.6A2C2F40739@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 08:19:54 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/mh-1V2j51RQ5Q0HEB84bQ4Jl-Nw>
Subject: [netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8341 (6493)
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: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 15:20:05 -0000

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8341,
"Network Configuration Access Control Model".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6493

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Balazs Lengyel <balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com>

Section: 3.5.2

Original Text
-------------
All the same rules as an instance-identifier apply,
except that predicates for keys are optional.  If a key
predicate is missing, then the node-instance-identifier
represents all possible server instances for that key.

Corrected Text
--------------
All the same rules as an instance-identifier apply,
except that predicates for keys are optional.  If a key
predicate is missing, then the node-instance-identifier
represents all possible server instances for that key.

Specifying prefixes for the node names is OPTIONAL. If a prefix is not specified the node-instance-identifier represents all possible server instances.

Notes
-----
For the typedef node-instance-identifier (and the leaf path) it is not clear whether the value should or should not include prefixes?
 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-9.13.2 states
"All node names in an instance-identifier value MUST be qualified with
   explicit namespace prefixes"

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-14 - instance-identifier rule
indicates the prefixes are optional.

Whichever is the correct answer it should be explicitly stated.
If prefixes are optional and we have 2 leaves with the same path except the namespace/prefix I assume both are referenced (effected) by the nacm rule. Correct?

Actually this is a bit misleading also in RFC7950.

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. 

--------------------------------------
RFC8341 (draft-ietf-netconf-rfc6536bis-09)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Network Configuration Access Control Model
Publication Date    : March 2018
Author(s)           : A. Bierman, M. Bjorklund
Category            : INTERNET STANDARD
Source              : Network Configuration
Area                : Operations and Management
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email