IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Netconf] Inconsistency in Section 1.4 of draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-18

"Mehmet Ersue" <mersue@gmail.com> Wed, 14 December 2016 20:02 UTC

Return-Path: <mersue@gmail.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 9D7FF129ECD for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 12:02:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 rPHeEslRehyc for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 12:02:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wj0-x22b.google.com (mail-wj0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c01::22b]) (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 A725712941E for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 12:02:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wj0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id tk12so47642295wjb.3 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 12:02:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:thread-index:content-language :disposition-notification-to; bh=8SfIcLWScaKUHmCrBEOi2fmvsyHdGgRo2SvGAzLqVz4=; b=V0pRQAAcMlJjVTMxymLDF6sM9cFV3dEv6F2hXhe7Jk3+eT/48DypDNYh83feQB4g9f l8PElMTn6NTwtIaxTaq8dXQ2KZ71yEAeCe7nskK+SdzKAs0FZReffEcQF6/9LhewUdxz B0UYHLyxQXPlt2q2Mpp8OqV6dv1UZPEF4Vq18kN0+xvgZmh0+zD6v+hMmscAMMW/H34l 2BH0iNxfu0Wogc/S7LSzuun5Cr8FUDhRvVNYGbzS3uhNWCF1FjkScD5eF/C300I7pSnE wP6AsaTrsviFgOH37GJzORIe9FnoUzFDCbRglQ4nMfZiDy4DqQNFyFjzftZtJLMNGEPh FBJg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:thread-index:content-language :disposition-notification-to; bh=8SfIcLWScaKUHmCrBEOi2fmvsyHdGgRo2SvGAzLqVz4=; b=Hr/weecZ0cbE0inS+T8VAj5ypJv5Gq66AZqoM85FWIq8Vi46jpwuRvQNMJHnltZG2C 84AjWReiHyJ360sPI1026ATjV2+lMM35+fWOVlKQOIlZp+O5kZpef+wW8yfkcXUFd8Jp 8H/MaHGF3Cqe0jSRnt6hqY2/DiObn8887KstyyY0J4WkzRV34TcMENLgqhVEo9mInTDT pHI7V3/Mmx07tODD0gNzKsZm5b/0GGzCRdEe/cdnbjlP889jUI+rQwXhOqCxeOFTn66i VjMnlKwl8wthRoy3hMEC1IiwBSFx7y0DgySV2DyfzxpTlNp/K20QKkgNulNICh31WzCT thMQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC03dWigRK1AwgKv72ncTcPQmVrKpQK8RbbN16WhGDy8Vdf3x5yJBoHGqaoTl2/0X8Q==
X-Received: by 10.194.3.47 with SMTP id 15mr87396972wjz.17.1481745751655; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 12:02:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from DESKTOPFLHJVQJ (p5B34016F.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [91.52.1.111]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x5sm68705204wje.36.2016.12.14.12.02.30 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 14 Dec 2016 12:02:30 -0800 (PST)
From: Mehmet Ersue <mersue@gmail.com>
To: 'Netconf' <netconf@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 21:02:29 +0100
Message-ID: <02e601d25645$003cea50$00b6bef0$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AdJWRINl9HfMmxfAQ2qhSDPcnKxRRg==
Content-Language: de
X-AVK-Virus-Check: AVA 25.9511;155A1E2
X-AVK-Spam-Check: 1; str=0001.0A0C0204.5851A556.00C2,ss=1,re=0.000,recu=0.000,reip=0.000,cl=1,cld=1,fgs=0; F1206
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/rSZrzbALqwaQSrUBrV1Ux772bO8>
Cc: 'RFC Editor' <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: [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: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 20:02:35 -0000

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.

Regards,
Mehmet

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email