Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6241 (5388)
Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net> Tue, 19 June 2018 21:26 UTC
Return-Path: <kwatsen@juniper.net>
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 A2DC7130F01 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 14:26:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=juniper.net
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 Smhrfkcg_WOz for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 14:26:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com [67.231.152.164]) (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 78B98130F2C for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 14:26:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0108161.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w5JLPFCo003562; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 14:26:14 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=PPS1017; bh=RY8GNGkORmRTXkwAZhNOaG1lcq47C9D8UJcpzf9LPTs=; b=zX3cxV/8JOr0g6tBDFDVyg6nxr6tlEnivf7dbqfrncVqaKImUDv1oW5IsvlxfLZRVKIh DDmHtSU7ZhLAzwtbMTsP3aGTattSqU08kKZBcu5QlrS9cuk2U5kUPJcIxz9BqjYAZg7c r75CqgOOE0fZ4tmbN8F31j5F+TQW0SyG7Qk6leCDzlM6astf6SHPc/ill25hbLx+n5Dh OuaIy0zDI6MMZrb+WRIzYb3l4O1HKoeOYdIF+4VbPgp9ROYtP3xhgvag2U1rHrj2uT+v +2aDNjCTsWr30hRoYHAMbUgSG00iESu+MgsSuwr5nLuFPiZk7gAxXtX5avUh1D/34tyJ RQ==
Received: from nam05-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2nam05lp0239.outbound.protection.outlook.com [216.32.181.239]) by mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2jq7png746-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 19 Jun 2018 14:26:13 -0700
Received: from BYAPR05MB4230.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (52.135.200.153) by BYAPR05MB4216.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (52.135.200.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.884.16; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 21:26:11 +0000
Received: from BYAPR05MB4230.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::959d:9fbe:90e4:3cc]) by BYAPR05MB4230.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::959d:9fbe:90e4:3cc%4]) with mapi id 15.20.0884.010; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 21:26:11 +0000
From: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>
To: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>, Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
CC: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, Rob Enns <rob.enns@gmail.com>, Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, Ignas Bagdonas <ibagdona@gmail.com>, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>, Jonathan Hansford <jonathan@hansfords.net>, Netconf <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6241 (5388)
Thread-Index: AQHUAZooFE0qHY9OSk+Gmeiph2ebYaRbTWUAgALheYCACbMpgA==
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 21:26:11 +0000
Message-ID: <55BD89CF-318C-4F84-B122-6D3469B2344B@juniper.net>
References: <20180611153745.D1B5DB80E72@rfc-editor.org> <CABCOCHS1x0zPMf49GS1kAt6ufBUwpn_-zPvyR+BFaHfyEP6p2w@mail.gmail.com> <1C8EB3E3-2B57-4256-B1BA-CA5A0C56BBDE@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1C8EB3E3-2B57-4256-B1BA-CA5A0C56BBDE@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.20.0.170309
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.14]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BYAPR05MB4216; 7:Arb5vlkZfOtZVkUZnbQKSkSWHggTb4c+957dDOsDR/vaWIW52qB2dJNhETXesqA2CW73xVef4LRxLbK+LPmvEFVJn5jG2xRPBRKJ6PcdKG2ukpCPa86vMwZqGHDmsF/nlSdphxBt3auRoP9dLPt1Wozt9GI2Ne8Zrq5t33uWccpOg7UAj/9d5dVXagfirju/lyrNOB28bS/VdESqr4x26JQkz9Q4kUrv1NuJIWham6pU/K6KQ2G+h80oeacUQ0ag
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SOS;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: b267ae0d-32b1-43aa-04c7-08d5d62b478d
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(7020095)(4652020)(4534165)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(5600026)(711020)(48565401081)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:BYAPR05MB4216;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BYAPR05MB4216:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BYAPR05MB4216A54A7F1A51BDB97F5D48A5700@BYAPR05MB4216.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(28532068793085)(10436049006162)(85827821059158)(21748063052155);
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(8211001083)(6040522)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(93006095)(93001095)(3231254)(944501410)(52105095)(10201501046)(3002001)(6055026)(149027)(150027)(6041310)(20161123564045)(20161123558120)(20161123562045)(201703131423095)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123560045)(6072148)(201708071742011)(7699016); SRVR:BYAPR05MB4216; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BYAPR05MB4216;
x-forefront-prvs: 07083FF734
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(39380400002)(346002)(39860400002)(396003)(366004)(376002)(50944005)(189003)(199004)(66066001)(82746002)(316002)(86362001)(966005)(2900100001)(58126008)(478600001)(6486002)(6436002)(486006)(229853002)(476003)(446003)(36756003)(11346002)(76176011)(54906003)(110136005)(106356001)(606006)(6306002)(2616005)(54896002)(105586002)(6512007)(68736007)(33656002)(236005)(3660700001)(8676002)(3280700002)(83716003)(53936002)(8936002)(5250100002)(81166006)(81156014)(6506007)(53546011)(7736002)(5660300001)(6116002)(6246003)(39060400002)(59450400001)(4326008)(3846002)(14454004)(186003)(7416002)(97736004)(99286004)(26005)(2906002)(102836004)(25786009); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BYAPR05MB4216; H:BYAPR05MB4230.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: K6wyNRFbloP/pzG00K9x8zIz3f40kmavCRNV0wjWDImBMX0+CqbVcl/hXTo5R8K7kRGT6pweiv8Gw3ot3ji5rb5fuM/hKmMKiq7kAdOG6+yJTdntHdPIlm26MtrNBUVQrkqLdOrp+hoIK6XXena/BcypLyyAqGtm/HXapjKeSyKimGkhg9V3UKrSFKbm+s31Qjhzz+MynZ139z+GScAcZyirBwKU1Cx8cgheKChDg8x2TcOxyEMAfQ34/1PJYkZx0xyjzc5ViNmO8lcBblbQWEJNrzGVeC7Nij5Bs+ws0zcBRHTS50wzFvy5FpkATH8I/+DnRRSfOU5Zh3hB0Aqzxg==
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_55BD89CF318C4F84B1226D3469B2344Bjunipernet_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: b267ae0d-32b1-43aa-04c7-08d5d62b478d
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 19 Jun 2018 21:26:11.4254 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BYAPR05MB4216
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2018-06-19_11:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_notspam policy=outbound_spam score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1805220000 definitions=main-1806190230
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/uU3q2SvBlIw7tTPMijjoOtZs4S8>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6241 (5388)
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 21:26:35 -0000
I don't think this is necessary. Of all the other operations, only the <lock> operation has an example of an <rpc-error>, and I think this is because its "Negative Response" definition specifies special behavior, unlike any other operation. Kent On 6/13/18, 9:18 AM, "Mahesh Jethanandani" <mjethanandani@gmail.com<mailto:mjethanandani@gmail.com>> wrote: If we agree, would it make sense to have the example for the error case, complete with error code? On Jun 11, 2018, at 1:19 PM, Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com<mailto:andy@yumaworks.com>> wrote: Hi, This errata seems correct. Andy On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 8:37 AM, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org<mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>> wrote: The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6241, "Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5388<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rfc-2Deditor.org_errata_eid5388&d=DwMFAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=IoOnJwsGznMWFbTKq0w2QLI7LZzslibbCMX_gEK2v9M&s=dunte0ooPA7WCzsMj4BzH4I3zn9CMYswfjBHH6HIpd8&e=> -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Jonathan Hansford <jonathan@hansfords.net<mailto:jonathan@hansfords.net>> Section: 8.3.4.2 Original Text ------------- 8.3.4.2. <discard-changes> If the client decides that the candidate configuration is not to be committed, the <discard-changes> operation can be used to revert the candidate configuration to the current running configuration. <rpc message-id="101" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0"> <discard-changes/> </rpc> This operation discards any uncommitted changes by resetting the candidate configuration with the content of the running configuration. Corrected Text -------------- 8.3.4.2. <discard-changes> Description: If the client decides that the candidate configuration is not to be committed, the <discard-changes> operation can be used to revert the candidate configuration to the current running configuration. This operation discards any uncommitted changes by resetting the candidate configuration with the content of the running configuration. Positive Response: If the device was able to satisfy the request, an <rpc-reply> is sent that contains an <ok> element. Negative Response: An <rpc-error> element is included in the <rpc-reply> if the request cannot be completed for any reason. Example: <rpc message-id="101" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0"> <discard-changes/> </rpc> <rpc-reply message-id="101" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0"> <ok/> </rpc-reply> Notes ----- RFC 6241 section 1.1 includes the following two definitions: o protocol operation: A specific remote procedure call, as used within the NETCONF protocol. o remote procedure call (RPC): Realized by exchanging <rpc> and <rpc-reply> messages. Positive and negative responses are detailed for all instances of an operation within the RFC with the exception of <discard-changes>. Section 8.3.4.2 identifies <discard-changes> as an operation, and appendices A and C identify "rollback-failed" as an error-tag to be used when the "Request to roll back some configuration change (via rollback-on-error or <discard-changes> operations) was not completed for some reason." This change clarifies that <discard-changes> requires an <rpc-reply>. 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. -------------------------------------- RFC6241 (draft-ietf-netconf-4741bis-10) -------------------------------------- Title : Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) Publication Date : June 2011 Author(s) : R. Enns, Ed., M. Bjorklund, Ed., J. Schoenwaelder, Ed., A. Bierman, Ed. Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Network Configuration Area : Operations and Management Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG Mahesh Jethanandani mjethanandani@gmail.com<mailto:mjethanandani@gmail.com>
- Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6241… Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6241… Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6241… Kent Watsen
- [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6241 (53… RFC Errata System
- Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6241… Andy Bierman