Re: [Netconf] Inconsistency in Section 1.4 of draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-18
Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Thu, 15 December 2016 12:01 UTC
Return-Path: <mbj@tail-f.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 83F39129D9B for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Dec 2016 04:01:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.797
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.797 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896, SPF_PASS=-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 LAD3rmvVHEkY for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Dec 2016 04:01:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CF3E12A0BF for <netconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Dec 2016 03:47:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [173.38.220.36]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 719011AE018B; Thu, 15 Dec 2016 12:47:12 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 12:47:11 +0100
Message-Id: <20161215.124711.2216477344616156120.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: mersue@gmail.com
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <02e601d25645$003cea50$00b6bef0$@gmail.com>
References: <02e601d25645$003cea50$00b6bef0$@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 24.5 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/rK0C88FI7K5gJlUKqdHvn6nmorY>
Cc: netconf@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: Re: [Netconf] Inconsistency in Section 1.4 of draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-18
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 12:01:52 -0000
"Mehmet Ersue" <mersue@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear NETCONF WG, > > RFC Editor found an inconsistency in Section 1.4 of > draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-18, where paragraph 6 says: > > "If the NETCONF server is expecting a > "persist-id" parameter to complete the confirmed commit procedure > then the RESTCONF edit operation MUST fail with a "409 Conflict" > status-line. There error-tag "in-use" is returned in this case. The > error-tag value "resource-denied" is used in this case." > > Myself as the document shepherd and the authors agreed to use the error-tag > value "invalid value" to align with the operations <cancel-commit> and > <commit> in RFC 6241. > The correction will be done as below: > > OLD: > There error-tag "in-use" is returned in this case. The > error-tag value "resource-denied" is used in this case. > > NEW: > The error-tag value "invalid-value" is used in this case. > > Please speak up within 2 days if you have a strong objection. I don't think invalid-value is appropriate. It signals that the client provided an invalid value for some parameter, but that's not true in this case - there is nothing the client can do in order to fix the situation. I prefer to use 'resource-denied' (which is actually what Mehmet suggested). /martin
- [Netconf] Inconsistency in Section 1.4 of draft-i… Mehmet Ersue
- Re: [Netconf] Inconsistency in Section 1.4 of dra… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Netconf] Inconsistency in Section 1.4 of dra… Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] Inconsistency in Section 1.4 of dra… Andy Bierman
- Re: [Netconf] Inconsistency in Section 1.4 of dra… Martin Bjorklund