Re: [netconf] Relative HTTP URLs in RESTCONF's ietf-yang-library `location` leafs

[Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jan,


> On Mar 1, 2024, at 6:01 AM, Jan Kundrát <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> RFC 6991 defines inet:uri as
>> 
>>  typedef uri {
>>    type string {
>>      pattern '[a-z][a-z0-9+.-]*:.*';
>>    }
>>    …
>>  }
>> 
>> Thus a relative URL would be invalid.
> 
> Thanks, but that's not what my copy of that RFC [1] says:
> 
>    typedef uri {
>      type string;
>      description
>       "The uri type represents a Uniform Resource Identifier
>        (URI) as defined by STD 66.
> 
>        ...
> 
> I also checked the errata, and none of them appear to apply here. What RFC are you referring to?

Sorry, I was referring to the bis here:

	https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-15#section-4


> 
>> FWIW, the restconf-client-server draft [1] defines an "external-endpoint” node to configure the user-facing  endpoint:
>> 
>>            description
>>              "Identifies contact information for the external
>>               system that terminates connections before passing
>>               them through to this server (e.g., a network address
>>               translator or a load balancer).  These values have
>>               no effect on the local operation of this server,
>>               but may be used by the application when needing to
>>               inform other systems how to contact this server.";
> 
> That will indeed "solve" the problem for our server, but there are two problems with it:
> 
> 1) If the wording says that "it has no effect on the local operation of this server", I think that that implies that its value should not affect data returned by the server in question. Right?

Look at the second half of that sentence:

	"but may be used by the application when needing to
              inform other systems how to contact this server."

Clearly in scope - agreed?


> 2) Someone will have to figure out how to set this value properly :).
> 
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6991#page-23
> 

Sorry, I don’t understand.  What property?



> With kind regards,
> Jan


Thanks again,
Kent