Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040 (5565)
Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Mon, 03 December 2018 10:27 UTC
Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.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 57BDD130E19 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Dec 2018 02:27:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 0XN7LwzUvjzr for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Dec 2018 02:26:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 768CC12875B for <netconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Dec 2018 02:26:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhreml709-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 1413B92DEE542 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Dec 2018 10:26:42 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from lhreml709-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.58) by lhreml709-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Mon, 3 Dec 2018 10:26:43 +0000
Received: from lhreml709-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.58) by lhreml709-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.58) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1591.10; Mon, 3 Dec 2018 10:26:43 +0000
Received: from NKGEML411-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.70) by lhreml709-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.58) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA_P256) id 15.1.1591.10 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 3 Dec 2018 10:26:43 +0000
Received: from NKGEML513-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.69]) by nkgeml411-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.70]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Mon, 3 Dec 2018 18:26:24 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
CC: "rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org" <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, "andy@yumaworks.com" <andy@yumaworks.com>, "kwatsen@juniper.net" <kwatsen@juniper.net>, "ibagdona@gmail.com" <ibagdona@gmail.com>, "warren@kumari.net" <warren@kumari.net>, "mjethanandani@gmail.com" <mjethanandani@gmail.com>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040 (5565)
Thread-Index: AQHUis0fOWI85JR8KUeCGWx7iiB8pKVsL8uAgACRE7D//34CAIAAjuzg
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2018 10:26:23 +0000
Message-ID: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA9B177963@nkgeml513-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <20181203055737.B72D1B8122E@rfc-editor.org> <20181203.095409.224403340529984673.mbj@tail-f.com> <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA9B177661@nkgeml513-mbs.china.huawei.com> <20181203.104808.838283353261944785.mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <20181203.104808.838283353261944785.mbj@tail-f.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.138.33.244]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/swrElmwh3UVTGko2r_yB5ZLx6sE>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040 (5565)
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 03 Dec 2018 10:27:02 -0000
-----邮件原件----- 发件人: Martin Bjorklund [mailto:mbj@tail-f.com] 发送时间: 2018年12月3日 17:48 收件人: Qin Wu 抄送: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org; andy@yumaworks.com; kwatsen@juniper.net; ibagdona@gmail.com; warren@kumari.net; mjethanandani@gmail.com; netconf@ietf.org 主题: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040 (5565) Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> wrote: > See data-missing definition in RFC6241: > " > error-tag: data-missing > error-type: application > error-severity: error > error-info: none > Description: Request could not be completed because the relevant > data model content does not exist. For example, > a "delete" operation was attempted on > data that does not exist. > > " > And status code 409 definition in RFC7231 " > 6.5.8. 409 Conflict > > The 409 (Conflict) status code indicates that the request could not > be completed due to a conflict with the current state of the target > resource. This code is used in situations where the user might be > able to resolve the conflict and resubmit the request. The server > SHOULD generate a payload that includes enough information for a user > to recognize the source of the conflict. > > 6.5.4. 404 Not Found > > The 404 (Not Found) status code indicates that the origin server did > not find a current representation for the target resource or is not > willing to disclose that one exists. A 404 status code does not > indicate whether this lack of representation is temporary or > permanent; the 410 (Gone) status code is preferred over 404 if the > origin server knows, presumably through some configurable means, that > the condition is likely to be permanent. > > " > Which make me feel data missing is more related to 404 instead of 409. Wrong? 404 means that *the requested resource* doesn't exist. The example "delete" operation in 6241 refers to an edit-config with operation "delete". The corresponding RESTCONF operation is "delete" within a YANG PATCH. In this case, the requested resource exists, so a 404 would not be correct. So there are certainly cases where "data-missing" does not mean 404. But I guess there are also cases where "data-missing" will actually correspond to a 404. For example an edit-config that just tries to delete a non-existing node will be a "data-missing", and if the corresponding RESTCONF request is a DELETE on the resource, it will be 404 - but if the corresponding RESTCONF request is a YANG PATCH with a "delete" edit, it will be 409. So, maybe the proper fix is | data-missing | 404, 409 | /martin [Qin]: Looks like status code 404 is given a different meaning in RFC8040 See the following quoted text: " 4. RESTCONF Methods The resource must exist or the DELETE method will fail. 4.6. PATCH If the user is not authorized to alter the target resource, an error response containing a "403 Forbidden" status-line SHOULD be returned. A server MAY return a "404 Not Found" status-line, as described in Section 6.5.4 in [RFC7231]. The error-tag value "invalid-value" is used in this case. 4.7. DELETE If the user is not authorized to delete the target resource, then an error response containing a "403 Forbidden" status-line SHOULD be returned. The error-tag value "access-denied" is returned in this case. A server MAY return a "404 Not Found" status-line, as described in Section 6.5.4 in [RFC7231]. The error-tag value "invalid-value" is returned in this case. " If we allow mapping data-missing into 404, it seems to me more changes are required. > > -Qin > -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: Martin Bjorklund [mailto:mbj@tail-f.com] > 发送时间: 2018年12月3日 16:54 > 收件人: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org > 抄送: andy@yumaworks.com; kwatsen@juniper.net; ibagdona@gmail.com; > warren@kumari.net; mjethanandani@gmail.com; Qin Wu; netconf@ietf.org > 主题: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040 (5565) > > Hi, > > I don't think this errata should be accepted. 404 means that the requested resource doesn't exist, but "data-missing" can be returned e.g. if you try to patch an existing resource of type leafref to point to a non-existing leaf. > > > /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: > > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5565 > > > > -------------------------------------- > > Type: Technical > > Reported by: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> > > > > Section: 7 > > > > Original Text > > ------------- > > +-------------------------+------------------+ > > | error-tag | status code | > > +-------------------------+------------------+ > > | in-use | 409 | > > | lock-denied | 409 | > > | resource-denied | 409 | > > | data-exists | 409 | > > | data-missing | 409 | > > > > > > Corrected Text > > -------------- > > +-------------------------+------------------+ > > | error-tag | status code | > > +-------------------------+------------------+ > > | in-use | 409 | > > | lock-denied | 409 | > > | resource-denied | 409 | > > | data-exists | 409 | > > | data-missing | 404 | > > > > > > Notes > > ----- > > The <error-tag> data missing should be mapped to status code '404' instead of '409' to get consistent with the defintion of data-missing in RFC6241. > > > > 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] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040 (55… RFC Errata System
- Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040… Qin Wu
- Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040… Qin Wu
- Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040… Qin Wu
- Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040… Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040… Qin Wu
- Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040… Ignas Bagdonas