Re: [netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040 (5761)

Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Mon, 24 June 2019 14:27 UTC

Return-Path: <andy@yumaworks.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 5C230120188 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 07:27:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 5DsKDdC8M2b8 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 07:26:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x229.google.com (mail-lj1-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::229]) (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 7FB181202A3 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 07:26:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x229.google.com with SMTP id m23so12773530lje.12 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 07:26:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=UdKkddck1yzVXM73COAHpmemBUe39IZ9A4Cp+faXEtc=; b=S9Ec6lwI0ddKc2NbPfUV+tGRigDRwB9FtBRc0UC+Zhb+ILsJG8Y+5vemYJMd+YL7SD NbBcYoQ2BNBmpUK2jBFvTHLB9SvgfBXezman5TH3CFXeu+1l5Rpu8XFMpVgR75Nx3r1N VSzIR5OI2g3XMJkf8uQ/BMFA+BctlLaw9l5pnZ7QyPsiL+I0ABA/sTVKjNI/YVg6PDet 3foc/ZtBX/Y8nVlY9VN2qbuZRV23LKRZCxKsXe8lnphMZE7kTwVOVyf7buQsLNaKB7zE Q/itHhvUWgb/jxDYWAp1AlXMexLKutxUDAmiUvsVFHt98cW2VMNEqWcuhZVKLrHkRApq 2hsQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=UdKkddck1yzVXM73COAHpmemBUe39IZ9A4Cp+faXEtc=; b=hd6Pjuz0m0J7ZRwgLic4gV1ZDuJ5z0aDg4RdgWA+DguupjGdJ2EfN9vANWdGPvcB8e Fpj0URpMvga/7+LtvPdD/A9P3Z2/e/VyaCqB665uVhZthZbgHiCtefjntCk8AvrbVLIK V3O2xPOXraSYQmsQoKyKh+DEdOb4mbX3LGSm1WtN06w/iYDZ/pTtE2qmIevblzAaSoVG TZJgJOvYvMtZSCILu4E3z1t3H7fo4U89cU099TaeYnbq31X98F1nzqlFaUe2QQwNpzgc iCtEhwjZlQyBDkqpS2eghkKWzyMoOEjDo0vYqaDVcXSUtnVJkyNuwlpoLnNNJSOHerVU +cHw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWop9kpFzkABoyVqz80XTwTPkWZu0nbQyh4HBi2rEnVF83subla ZhgIx3gJp0J8ER0pUeG1UQFKSDepUPoorvFjxcWvhw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqymUXtrgdNhNbQz+g5zjgedicq/ZimtK2hGLr1LUgsd0YMJ/g3Szwn5UsIG1i7Gu+Gkro9G3zzUPDVrHvkRmRY=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:6313:: with SMTP id x19mr73202930ljb.25.1561386414549; Mon, 24 Jun 2019 07:26:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAA49AB6EE@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAA49AB6EE@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com>
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 07:26:43 -0700
Message-ID: <CABCOCHR+EZyoFJywjbwc+HWWppFWPgRVGuMN7UoRrAVE3YemqA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
Cc: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>, Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, Ignas Bagdonas <ibagdona@gmail.com>, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>, Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>, Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>, Netconf <netconf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000098c47c058c129ac1"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/tkrh6T17F1bJWHrzj-NmkptAulk>
Subject: Re: [netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040 (5761)
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, 24 Jun 2019 14:27:02 -0000

On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 6:27 AM Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> wrote:

> Thanks for the quick reply, can you clarify the reason behind? Thanks!
>
>
>


RFC 8040 specifies an error-tag to use.
The claim that RFC 6241 specifies something else is no proof the
WG intended to use that error-tag in RFC 8040.

An errata means that implementations that conform to the RFC are wrong
and need to be corrected.  IMO the change being proposed is not a typo and
there is no other text in RFC 8040 that contradicts the specified
error-tag.

A change of this technical significance that impacts conformance needs to go
through the normal RFC publication/approval process.

Andy

-Qin
>
> *发件人:* Andy Bierman [mailto:andy@yumaworks.com]
> *发送时间:* 2019年6月24日 20:59
> *收件人:* RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
> *抄送:* Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>om>; Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>et>;
> Ignas Bagdonas <ibagdona@gmail.com>om>; Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>et>;
> Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>et>; Mahesh Jethanandani <
> mjethanandani@gmail.com>gt;; Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>om>; Netconf <
> netconf@ietf.org>
> *主题:* Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040 (5761)
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> The cited text is in 4.4.1 (there is no 4.1.1).
>
>
>
> I do not see any evidence that the WG intended to write the word
> "data-exists" but
>
> wrote "resource-denied" instead. Therefore this cannot be changed with an
> errata.
>
>
>
>
>
> Andy
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 6:08 PM 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://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5761
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Qin WU <bill.wu@huawei.com>
>
> Section: 4.1.1
>
> Original Text
> -------------
> If the data resource already exists, then the POST request MUST fail
> and a "409 Conflict" status-line MUST be returned.  The error-tag
> value "resource-denied" is used in this case
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> If the data resource already exists, then the POST request MUST fail
> and a "409 Conflict" status-line MUST be returned.  The error-tag
> value "data-exists" is used in this case
>
> Notes
> -----
> The error-tag value should be corrected as "data-exists" in this case
> based on the context. According to error-tag definition in RFC6241:
>
>    error-tag:      resource-denied
>    error-type:     transport, rpc, protocol, application
>    error-severity: error
>    error-info:     none
>    Description:    Request could not be completed because of
>                    insufficient resources.
>
> It is apparent error-tag value "data-exists" should be corresponding
> to the data resource already exists condition.
>
> 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
>
>