Re: [netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040 (6342)
Martin Björklund <mbj+ietf@4668.se> Mon, 23 November 2020 13:38 UTC
Return-Path: <mbj+ietf@4668.se>
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 99DB23A0B0D
for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 05:38:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.779
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.779 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, PDS_NAKED_TO_NUMERO=1.999,
RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001,
URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
header.d=4668.se header.b=WRfE7d3m;
dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=G+ML5tJM
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 dkhoM_PsKsgS for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Mon, 23 Nov 2020 05:38:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com
[66.111.4.25])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C776E3A0B0B
for <netconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 05:38:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44])
by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E3B15C014B;
Mon, 23 Nov 2020 08:38:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162])
by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 23 Nov 2020 08:38:43 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=4668.se; h=date
:message-id:to:cc:subject:from:in-reply-to:references
:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=fm3; bh=
q5aqbz0b1qJxJkKb7Es0JrmvGyq0/GKJ2C36iw1uuIM=; b=WRfE7d3maA9p2sL1
VyHpPJQ77Y7etenTPf4/fOkmsJ5cGqvajvupdUl0CppGOphuqg8VzS6JJtkJ/Etn
7zyl6zzqvCTkpVRl+mnZrIW+GhN9cQp14Zg5FbHDXcHgxSIw+qou+e/vLbT113An
ADT81SzkI0w9ATNAEWw29oe7HRSLDcEmibinj2YClRG5+LcqHSWy8nplBZj+hMnN
dtdsgq59QYJtFYN44VK4onJm+fc5voItZ5qg/MLkdnjv+/RKJpuHr4ydSQzmQMRk
6+TeUXLhih7WYLPm4tZ2PujxI3rO6BUXljA0Fe+/ahdxDGam1tvHOv4TmaNRC7Lj
v4fa3Q==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=
messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type
:date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references
:subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender
:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=q5aqbz0b1qJxJkKb7Es0JrmvGyq0/GKJ2C36iw1uu
IM=; b=G+ML5tJMxNzmQNUOTBxmEYn26KLCgCS+Ul+egm8c6sfgmgyqNA1Tuwkjm
W+FAq2l5s6BmQLfFPheEfZ3cwcmps91/DHc8b9yJpzjr38hnEiz9NvRUqQeR5Kof
GpDAxul8FEeTVpECI4aI0VKWxeI43XUE12q52rouVptyT5DY+iesjBd7eubbZwOc
4Iq9OQTlhV0hM4rd+d7j9XV1Tlvh+qL6J6R8X/YFSnrpH9IwgjK+j0Kqe2qbgZMm
5y/C9i581IaZ3p0jB51gR+9EiDwVsKvG73IZbRNv/yKZjJ5gonW3voYwzD2xl5yT
u93pmbyXIduYKUCDChJOOg4MBNPhg==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:Yru7X8gG-nkHJkU52egnATZKrKcum178R7aoB0wphoumeiyZtN07VA>
<xme:Yru7X1Cv4okrsD9Lx7pgpSKyHM2veMr5ebuF0ZFsigiYN0qTZi4RmqT0Eo-MD-jun
rriVjs3pty7OJ7Z2-g>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedrudegiedgheehucetufdoteggodetrfdotf
fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen
uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpeffkffvuffhjghfofggtgfgsehtqh
ertdertddunecuhfhrohhmpeforghrthhinhcuuehjnphrkhhluhhnugcuoehmsghjodhi
vghtfhesgeeiieekrdhsvgeqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepieehtedvteetjeekgfffgf
dtteevudeileetheeghffhieeuvdeijeegheethfehnecuffhomhgrihhnpeduhhhoshht
vgigrghmphhlvgdrtghomhenucfkphepudehkedrudejgedrgedrvdduheenucevlhhush
htvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmsghjodhivghtfhes
geeiieekrdhsvg
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:Yru7X0HdJlTpNi5aTeW3DBKajLZeF8FYQwtApVVnCsqrmHqlEWTLaA>
<xmx:Yru7X9QGJFoXtIYpGqqZAkFS7P7JwNLjK9n7rZ_4geqpCvpIh_SWJQ>
<xmx:Yru7X5wkLR8_pKcihUEsNnsxD2UHi_ifpFZUXblIrJc89EhuwnxQdg>
<xmx:Y7u7X6qY3cLnYJLiRr3PYBEKNpr_p1MwFalW0UX4taQYP6tT3yJZ3A>
Received: from localhost (unknown [158.174.4.215])
by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id B87E33280059;
Mon, 23 Nov 2020 08:38:41 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 14:38:40 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <20201123.143840.1300967807479051474.id@4668.se>
To: muly_i@rad.com
Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, kent+ietf@watsen.net, netconf@ietf.org
From: Martin =?iso-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rklund?= <mbj+ietf@4668.se>
In-Reply-To: <AM0PR0302MB334833C570C323DA7E3AEE7AF9FC0@AM0PR0302MB3348.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20201123.131452.2154616412508504559.id@4668.se>
<AM0PR0302MB33480674E3CAB4D8AB4DCBB5F9FC0@AM0PR0302MB3348.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
<AM0PR0302MB334833C570C323DA7E3AEE7AF9FC0@AM0PR0302MB3348.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.8 on Emacs 26.3
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/sE4S-6rDCAfMmdMC7xP4ia5Y8iA>
Subject: Re: [netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040 (6342)
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: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 13:38:46 -0000
Muly Ilan <muly_i@rad.com> wrote: > Hi Martin, > > Putting aside the similarity or not between plain PATCH and PUT, there's another example of inconsistency with plain PATCH in the RFC. > > Please check the plain PATCH example in appendix B.2.5. " Edit a Data Resource". > This example has keys both in the message header and message body. > > This means that either the example in 4.6.1 or the example in B.2.5 should be modified. No, different examples can show different things. > Section 4.6.1 includes the following text: > " > If the target resource represents a YANG list instance, then the key > leaf values, in message-body representation, MUST be the same as the > key leaf values in the request URI. > " > > If keys are not needed in the message body so this "warning text" is not needed either. It is needed, since keys are *allowed*. *If* the keys are present, they MUST match the existing keys. /martin > > Moreover, since the above "warning text" is part of the RFC, it suggests to me that the RFC assumes that there are keys in both header URI and body. > > > Best, > > Muly > > -----Original Message----- > From: Muly Ilan > Sent: 23/11/2020 14:26 > To: Martin Björklund <mbj+ietf@4668.se> > Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org; kent+ietf@watsen.net; netconf@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040 (6342) > > Hi Martin, > > Plain PATCH is defined as a merge operation i.e. it can create a resource. > It's not limited to editing of existing resources. > > From section 4.6.1: > " The plain patch mechanism merges the contents of the message-body with the target resource." > > " Plain patch can be used to create or update, but not delete, a child resource within the target resource." > > It's better to have consistent examples. > I suggest either to modify the plain PATCH example or the PUT example. > > > Best, > > Muly > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Björklund [mailto:mbj+ietf@4668.se] > Sent: 23/11/2020 14:15 > To: Muly Ilan <muly_i@rad.com> > Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org; kent+ietf@watsen.net; netconf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040 (6342) > > Hi, > > Muly Ilan <muly_i@rad.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > If list keys are not required in message body for plain PATCH then > > they are also not required for the PUT method. > > You are right that the keys are redundant also in PUT. However, PUT means completely replace or create the resource, but plain PATCH modifies only the given fields. > > > /martin > > > > But the example for PUT in section 4.5 is: > > > > PUT /restconf/data/example-jukebox:jukebox/\ > > library/artist=Foo%20Fighters/album=Wasting%20Light HTTP/1.1 > > Host: example.com > > Content-Type: application/yang-data+json { "example-jukebox:album" : [ > > { "name" : "Wasting Light", "genre" : "example-jukebox:alternative", > > "year" : 2011 } ] } > > > > So, do we want consistency between PUT and plain PATCH? > > > > I believe consistency is important and currently the RFC contains two > > inconsistent examples. > > > > > > Best, > > > > Muly > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: netconf [mailto:netconf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Martin > > Bj?rklund > > Sent: 23/11/2020 10:37 > > To: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org > > Cc: kwatsen@juniper.net; netconf@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040 (6342) > > > > Hi, > > > > The issue boils down to if list keys are required in a plain patch. > > Unfortunately, the RFC doesn't specifucy this. From a technical pow, > > list keys are not necessary. In fact, if they are present in the > > payload, they are redundant (since they are part of the URL) (this is > > actually mentioned in the RFC). > > > > Since it isn't clearly specified, I think we must assume that the keys > > are not required. Hence I think that this errata should be rejected. > > > > In a future version of this document, the behaviour should be > > clarified. > > > > > > /martin > > > > > > RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8040, > > > "RESTCONF Protocol". > > > > > > -------------------------------------- > > > You may review the report below and at: > > > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww. > > > rfc-editor.org%2Ferrata%2Feid6342&data=04%7C01%7Cmuly_i%40rad.co > > > m% > > > 7Cf7ffd30dde054f875cc608d88f8b0eed%7Cf9047108cc2c4e4897a343fad1b3bf9 > > > d% > > > 7C1%7C0%7C637417174712193376%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjA > > > wM > > > DAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=2 > > > nm > > > LthW5HkwRvJZi%2F2Pj6%2B9qkLV9gV55wiBpIoiC%2FD4%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > -------------------------------------- > > > Type: Technical > > > Reported by: Muly Ilan <muly_i@rad.com> > > > > > > Section: 4.6.1 > > > > > > Original Text > > > ------------- > > > To replace just the "year" field in the "album" resource (instead of > > > replacing the entire resource with the PUT method), the client might > > > send a plain patch as follows: > > > PATCH /restconf/data/example-jukebox:jukebox/\ > > > library/artist=Foo%20Fighters/album=Wasting%20Light HTTP/1.1 > > > Host: example.com > > > If-Match: "b8389233a4c" > > > Content-Type: application/yang-data+xml <album > > > xmlns="https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2 > > > F%25 > > > 2Fexample.com%2Fns%2Fexample-jukebox&data=04%7C01%7Cmuly_i%40rad > > > .c > > > om%7Cf7ffd30dde054f875cc608d88f8b0eed%7Cf9047108cc2c4e4897a343fad1b3 > > > bf > > > 9d%7C1%7C0%7C637417174712193376%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4w > > > Lj > > > AwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdat > > > a= hxW6LA8t%2BNRka2GGRqRNsTnK2itYH1rRLnOxU7JbNlc%3D&reserved=0"> > > > <year>2011</year> > > > </album> > > > > > > Corrected Text > > > -------------- > > > To replace just the "year" field in the "album" resource (instead of > > > replacing the entire resource with the PUT method), the client might > > > send a plain patch as follows: > > > PATCH /restconf/data/example-jukebox:jukebox/\ > > > library/artist=Foo%20Fighters/album=Wasting%20Light HTTP/1.1 > > > Host: example.com > > > If-Match: "b8389233a4c" > > > Content-Type: application/yang-data+xml <album > > > xmlns="https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2 > > > F%25 > > > 2Fexample.com%2Fns%2Fexample-jukebox&data=04%7C01%7Cmuly_i%40rad > > > .c > > > om%7Cf7ffd30dde054f875cc608d88f8b0eed%7Cf9047108cc2c4e4897a343fad1b3 > > > bf > > > 9d%7C1%7C0%7C637417174712193376%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4w > > > Lj > > > AwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdat > > > a= hxW6LA8t%2BNRka2GGRqRNsTnK2itYH1rRLnOxU7JbNlc%3D&reserved=0"> > > > <name>Wasting Light</name> > > > <year>2011</year> > > > </album> > > > > > > Notes > > > ----- > > > Missing key leaf value in the message-body (<name>Wasting > > > Light</name>) > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > -------------------------------------- > > > RFC8040 (draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-18) > > > -------------------------------------- > > > Title : RESTCONF Protocol > > > Publication Date : January 2017 > > > Author(s) : A. Bierman, M. Bjorklund, K. Watsen > > > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > > > Source : Network Configuration > > > Area : Operations and Management > > > Stream : IETF > > > Verifying Party : IESG > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > netconf mailing list > > > netconf@ietf.org > > > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww. > > > ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fnetconf&data=04%7C01%7Cmuly_i%40 > > > ra > > > d.com%7Cf7ffd30dde054f875cc608d88f8b0eed%7Cf9047108cc2c4e4897a343fad > > > 1b > > > 3bf9d%7C1%7C0%7C637417174712193376%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiM > > > C4 > > > wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&s > > > da > > > ta=GOd8xUYLJ9C69r7aN6rujBhsYFJd05CxiHNXT9YXOZ0%3D&reserved=0 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > netconf mailing list > > netconf@ietf.org > > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww. > > ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fnetconf&data=04%7C01%7Cmuly_i%40ra > > d.com%7Cf5c6b052c9fe4dd9c64308d88fa96449%7Cf9047108cc2c4e4897a343fad1b > > 3bf9d%7C1%7C0%7C637417304990448682%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4 > > wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sda > > ta=SOPMijRWiUHA%2BpJnmxGJ4%2FLWqneTaFwfyIpdpuFl5yU%3D&reserved=0
- [netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040 (63… RFC Errata System
- Re: [netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040… Martin Björklund
- Re: [netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040… Muly Ilan
- Re: [netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040… Martin Björklund
- Re: [netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040… Muly Ilan
- Re: [netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040… Muly Ilan
- Re: [netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040… Muly Ilan
- Re: [netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040… Martin Björklund
- Re: [netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040… Martin Björklund
- Re: [netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040… Kent Watsen
- Re: [netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040… Andy Bierman