IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netmod] [Netconf] What should a server response be? - depending on NP-containers

Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com> Sat, 20 August 2016 02:04 UTC

Return-Path: <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
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 A1FC012D135; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 19:04:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 rFHaf6vANDLq; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 19:04:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x235.google.com (mail-pf0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::235]) (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 C07EB12B076; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 19:04:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x235.google.com with SMTP id x72so14333850pfd.2; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 19:04:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=DHgdOanVhXeSUmt5Or72obFMANROWB3bEAN6zRpyhWM=; b=bUJY8NQozp9etJ8QYWgHS37J/huopGTX0lC+uRONPEkU6QCRyiQPuMhH8OY+yeSvZO uicbeJNrlshBwOwyZf6uvflX3aMaufr77EF8VzxPlJETH6C3vD4sdjCtEmWQatE9kX1w 7okfg+Objoq8bk+neM6dac+TP0FR5qQ3YRDu2N6OHFyAnqCn1dVPPIvOZbHdw02pUe+z OSHOiSR0U1yTCsiI8rfStikMjFJ4i2v8gtfdym9+mvJ25GX28XeQFO6nXmqOh6k2iJMc 6rYEPvmfZdFL+3Vyh8BIgGWaPDTIWd5B1D3e15p84tcoNaTz9nR25c7UhKPEdtA8e3Py N/NA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=DHgdOanVhXeSUmt5Or72obFMANROWB3bEAN6zRpyhWM=; b=LVOjTyY8lgK9s4usBGuKLoItVCLCENzLRAm73O8JDNbdQjbmv5t4T76J+/V8uwI9kt 2qRXKhdjRdQsaOk8cF2bkmglsN4rDGIe2oHbtIJHDeq76lq+3glE8idCja5ApXOwJHao Hp/ns6B4UTyHOlvcZcaCTRyzpjmdesSQTZs1lSBKkupuu3fNkTD/B7C5H69uASF2ekqD sg7BsVw6hw2utGiG+dP0Nyhm84tox0ZO3dKTebn2gs3FzrcEc0mcez6E9rKMf7teke8y u5S2fC1fLZ/ntoTz6gw42s8jRO3gYXpkYYjsQnupsvvgh/aYy1VFYFQXEKVPBEfY/JX+ Ad5g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoousdDrxnhxRFk5o7f/h33FbyLYsNZRIDGmnqPB/fkfUVhERJdmRQ5/w/nKrFkts+BA==
X-Received: by 10.98.34.151 with SMTP id p23mr19943169pfj.102.1471658653295; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 19:04:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sjc-mahesh-nitro6.cisco.com ([128.107.241.170]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id wp4sm14420649pab.15.2016.08.19.19.04.11 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 19 Aug 2016 19:04:11 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20160817.111343.387561472405973484.mbj@tail-f.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 19:04:10 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <08053DE7-EF6C-4A14-B926-79723F516405@gmail.com>
References: <m2mvkj4tvv.fsf@nic.cz> <57AC713E.8080006@transpacket.com> <20160817.102821.2247775938129211118.mbj@tail-f.com> <20160817.111343.387561472405973484.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/SCo6nf6FC5dBz-5lbet_yRie_VE>
Cc: Netconf <netconf@ietf.org>, netmod WG <netmod@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [netmod] [Netconf] What should a server response be? - depending on NP-containers
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Sat, 20 Aug 2016 02:04:16 -0000

Moving the thread from netconf to netmod.

Will the authors pull 6020bis back into the WG to reach the rough consensus?

> On Aug 17, 2016, at 2:13 AM, Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have read this long ML thread twice now, and I agree with Andy that:
> 
> 1)  We should not / cannot make design changes in an errata or late in
>    AUTH48; in order to do this we need to pull the document back to
>    the WG and reach (rough) consensus on the behavior (note btw that
>    this thread is currently in NETCONF, it really should be NETMOD).
> 
> 2)  Since servers MAY delete NP-containers in some cases, clients can
>    easily handle NP-containers by using "merge" on them.
> 
> 
> I also agree with Jason that ideally the server should never fail on
> any kind of operation on an NP-container, regardless of current state
> and requested operation.  (But again, this is not a simple
> clarification of the current text.)
> 
> 
> And to answer the original question, I think the server that first got
> a request to create the empty NP-containers and then a request w/
> operation "none" is not correct when it fails with a "data-missing"
> error.  There is no text in 6241 or 6020 that supports this behavior.
> 
> 
> /martin
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> Netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf

Mahesh Jethanandani
mjethanandani@gmail.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email