IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Netconf] RESTCONF and draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-get-off-my-lawn-04 (on the IESG telechat this week)

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Thu, 15 May 2014 04:16 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FED01A03B6 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 May 2014 21:16:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.151
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.151 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 eD5p7dFXYfG3 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 May 2014 21:16:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 196C31A03A9 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 May 2014 21:16:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6348; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1400127377; x=1401336977; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=EG8d21C+g9xT6AEBw4MhkH7muK/M2OY10QeJb6jvPkc=; b=YXGZnBRyJO5qOwjp/FVrxqXW+0UlJzyUfYE7c3XSaKi4elrT+mkVSBmS cFGAbQGYT4nwcgvEDqAVhKVt3sTjulT+p7zBRJZQ6ygGoRiGstFilaAsW snxBmZvev5ma7SzkPENlOePTUjXgleWv3lqxiHL1GIbyr/XvWpx27zy5x 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjUFAGM+dFOtJV2Q/2dsb2JhbABZgkJEiWy8dgGBHBZ0giUBAQEEeAEQCxgJFgQEBwkDAgECATQRBgEMAQUCAQEXiCbRRBeOTgeEQASKEY9AhmmMK4F3gV8d
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,1056,1389744000"; d="scan'208,217";a="43998327"
Received: from rcdn-core-8.cisco.com ([173.37.93.144]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 May 2014 04:16:16 +0000
Received: from [10.21.92.228] (sjc-vpn5-1252.cisco.com [10.21.92.228]) by rcdn-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s4F4GFGD025095; Thu, 15 May 2014 04:16:15 GMT
Message-ID: <53743F8F.2050308@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 21:16:15 -0700
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>, Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>
References: <53714FEC.2030709@cisco.com> <CABCOCHQ4LoM_xcRH-j=3gYo_eBcOjnLmifed1HNa7mt5_k8xAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABCOCHTMRwSh32owC7E_XCmFm6abcVF4cRigPCz9nBo5R7nQcA@mail.gmail.com> <CF97DDB1.6FB67%kwatsen@juniper.net> <CABCOCHQ8BB-dJdu-jwKhVH3k0UzpCvAY+EOJqfa=EBFveB0RUA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABCOCHQ8BB-dJdu-jwKhVH3k0UzpCvAY+EOJqfa=EBFveB0RUA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040108000304090703060405"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/nGpyhvfWYiWf5uhpt1wQ49jqR6I
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, 'Barry Leiba' <barryleiba@computer.org>, NETCONF <netconf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] RESTCONF and draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-get-off-my-lawn-04 (on the IESG telechat this week)
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 15 May 2014 04:16:25 -0000

Dear all,

Discussing this issue with Barry:

    Yes, .well-known is a possible solution for netconf/restconf.
      Another possibility is URI templates.  The get-off-my-lawn
    document talks about both.  For restconf, Mark Nottingham could help
    advise which would be a better option for them. 

Regards, Benoit
>
>
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net 
> <mailto:kwatsen@juniper.net>> wrote:
>
>
>     Andy writes:
>
>         I think RESTCONF violates sec 2.3 wrt/ structure within the
>         URI path.
>
>     <snip/>
>
>     I agree with Andy that RESTCONF violates section 2.3.  I also
>     think that we can remove that violation by supporting "well-known"
>     URIs.  Notice that the 2nd paragraph in section 2.3 says "The only
>     exception to this requirement is registered 'well-known' URIs, as
>     specified by [RFC5785]."   My reading is, if we use a "well-known"
>     URI, then our subtree can defined sub-structure per RESTCONF
>     convention.
>
>     We discussed using well-known URIs before. Appendix B.3. in the
>     RESTCONF draft ("Open Issues") regards ".well-known usage".  This
>     issue was closed with the resolution "not needed in RESTCONF".  
>     We may need to revisit that decision now.
>
>
> I agree we need to support .well-known to conform to this BCP.
>
>     Thanks,
>     Kent
>
>
> Andy
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email