IETF Logo Mail Archive

[netmod] NMDA RPC/action validation

Michal Vaško <mvasko@cesnet.cz> Wed, 06 May 2020 08:13 UTC

Return-Path: <mvasko@cesnet.cz>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E549C3A0829 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 May 2020 01:13:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, 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=cesnet.cz
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 RrKEt9dk-y7h for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 May 2020 01:13:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kalendar.cesnet.cz (kalendar.cesnet.cz [78.128.211.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B0173A0816 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 May 2020 01:13:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by kalendar.cesnet.cz (Postfix, from userid 999) id 92CFE60195; Wed, 6 May 2020 10:13:15 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cesnet.cz; s=kalendar; t=1588752795; bh=+/L/J1hw8Ff0CwN/wrGM2qHDkBavhED7PDh8qd/mnPI=; h=To:Date:Subject:From; b=nMSJvaH4G/j8HV72WK6d5FrWfn3rqeqhdieMwzg9y5jMS/k1yMezVuHVCTYSgXSEQ qHmNN62UzOQWTLKYYsLc9WOUSXNai9Zj79X1A54ms8Z/23HDARegyFIfkl+/EAxRwE FAV7tX4nwj5GUryw9ZwwY2LwvMUEtJs1sK1QLXes=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
To: netmod <netmod@ietf.org>
User-Agent: SOGoMail 2.3.23
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 06 May 2020 10:13:15 +0200
Message-ID: <17c7-5eb27180-37-3fe0c5c0@155473923>
X-Forward: 84.42.161.20
From: Michal Vaško <mvasko@cesnet.cz>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/4u0JU0OgWDpV1rWHw_oQ-Re6BcQ>
Subject: [netmod] NMDA RPC/action validation
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 May 2020 08:13:21 -0000

Hi,
when we were implementing support for NMDA, we came across the section about actions and RPCs [1]. What I understood from it is that, effectively, all RPCs and actions are validated against the data in the operational datastore. So, for example, instance-identifiers and leafref targets in the RPC/action are searched for in the operational datastore. But I realized just now that I may have interpreted this short section in a wrong way and read between the lines.

Because while the section is named "Invocation of Actions and RPCs", no changes for RPCs are explicitly mentioned, I just assumed it does not really make sense for them to behave differently. Also, I basically interpreted "invocation" as validation because I am not sure how else to understand it. It would be best if these terms could be clarified but I am not sure it is possible since new errata is probably not the right way.

Thanks for clarifying this.

Regards,
Michal

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8342#section-6.2

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email