Re: [netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040 (6271)

Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net> Tue, 01 September 2020 20:45 UTC

Return-Path: <010001744b6b2011-58d28583-ed0a-47dd-a5eb-8677f3cac1a1-000000@amazonses.watsen.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 0C8903A1082 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Sep 2020 13:45:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=amazonses.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 g0ordu5CRhZ1 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Sep 2020 13:45:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from a8-96.smtp-out.amazonses.com (a8-96.smtp-out.amazonses.com [54.240.8.96]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5442C3A1081 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Sep 2020 13:45:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple; s=224i4yxa5dv7c2xz3womw6peuasteono; d=amazonses.com; t=1598993146; h=From:Message-Id:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References:Feedback-ID; bh=q7a4sNbEHXnvKejdl7X70AbkEpOqVUfIlAHnOmeqpcw=; b=eKU8342rUtoxuS40h1I6YvX35F2GN/CLT/oXBu7SfjI3Djw+jRQFHwO9OJzmx51h KP68YIYOITdkqNDcXJbzWIZk7b5UcinxX8caWh1jRAg6dgsZWzyUIi2Ll5RqMo0CsTC CVi7vlv+Io+XUjU982P6PQFqAhRfdZR/eiXizhlM=
From: Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>
Message-ID: <010001744b6b2011-58d28583-ed0a-47dd-a5eb-8677f3cac1a1-000000@email.amazonses.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_BD1F881D-C693-4DD6-8364-87E11A634AAE"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 20:45:46 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CABCOCHQvCSmQfxgUg24zMm_hWmdVDHjWn1Pjxdr22nPL-Awy3g@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>, Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>, Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>, Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
To: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
References: <20200901173726.8E404F40785@rfc-editor.org> <CABCOCHQvCSmQfxgUg24zMm_hWmdVDHjWn1Pjxdr22nPL-Awy3g@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
X-SES-Outgoing: 2020.09.01-54.240.8.96
Feedback-ID: 1.us-east-1.DKmIRZFhhsBhtmFMNikgwZUWVrODEw9qVcPhqJEI2DA=:AmazonSES
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/zAH7qxBkkrIsiKdBKxqN-hvtroM>
Subject: Re: [netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8040 (6271)
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: Tue, 01 Sep 2020 20:45:49 -0000

Maybe the wording is too strong?

    OLD: These parameters are only allowed if... 
    NEW: These parameters are only processed if…

Note also the HTTP goal to be idempotent.

K.


> On Sep 1, 2020, at 3:28 PM, Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I agree this errata should be accepted.
> 
> 
> Andy
> 
> 
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 10:37 AM RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org <mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>> wrote:
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8040,
> "RESTCONF Protocol".
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6271 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6271>
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net <mailto:kent%2Bietf@watsen.net>>
> 
> Section: 4.5
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
>    The "insert" (Section 4.8.5) and "point" (Section 4.8.6) query
>    parameters MUST be supported by the PUT method for data resources.
>    These parameters are only allowed if the list or leaf-list is
>    "ordered-by user".
> 
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
>    The "insert" (Section 4.8.5) and "point" (Section 4.8.6) query
>    parameters MUST be supported by the PUT method for data resources.
>    These parameters are only allowed if the target resource is a
>    non-existent entry of an "ordered-by user" list or leaf-list.
> 
> Notes
> -----
> First, Section 3.5 (Data Resource) says that "list" and "leaf-leaf" are not a data resources:
> 
>   A data resource represents a YANG data node that is a descendant node
>   of a datastore resource. Each YANG-defined data node can be uniquely
>   targeted by the request-line of an HTTP method. Containers, leafs,
>   leaf-list entries, list entries, anydata nodes, and anyxml nodes are
>   data resources.
> 
> Second, these query parameters only make sense when targeting a non-existent entry.   If the entry does not exist, then PUT is being used like a POST: to create and place an item in an ordered list.  However, if the entry exists, then PUT is being used to both replace the contents and (presumably) re-place the order in the list; but this doesn't make sense because:
> 
>   1) "insert" defaults to "last".
>   2) there is no "insert" value to indicate "keep existing placement".
>   3) having to concoct valid "insert" and "point" values is hard.
> 
> Thus indiscriminate PUTs would move entries to the end, which can't be desired...
> 
> 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