Re: [netmod] Instance-data-format - shall we define etag and last-modified annotation ?

Kent Watsen <kent@watsen.net> Tue, 23 July 2019 16:53 UTC

Return-Path: <0100016c1fc097e6-15bdeda7-0cb0-4477-9408-5325753cd799-000000@amazonses.watsen.net>
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 E8E8D12046F for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 09:53:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 SNUdKaG0sg02 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 09:53:40 -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 0773112044D for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 09:53:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple; s=6gbrjpgwjskckoa6a5zn6fwqkn67xbtw; d=amazonses.com; t=1563900811; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To:Feedback-ID; bh=Os8G0OohbrR5mEzYZ0x9UGeuEbbomQUwijwx+zGpNuY=; b=A/9bVFbGvFxOxixJUsBPVU+ejXERZ5PC50h3twZ3/tDnH27KrhaS55b+mtYNH6mP Y5bKp/pkSxGqS0dr9RC6eijHaIJiOpECubF4hrfF0P8MWMBzYqSvDapwBNJbJrbux5o H2xIcW9rnI/AjV13p5TEhlAKbmY/adDyKHLwlhkE=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Kent Watsen <kent@watsen.net>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (16F203)
In-Reply-To: <CABCOCHQrAQaK2XEfnC9EPwhsu4+Qe=tPyLe-bT9=7x9t1LN3BQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 16:53:31 +0000
Cc: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, =?utf-8?Q?Bal=C3=A1zs_Lengyel?= <balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <0100016c1fc097e6-15bdeda7-0cb0-4477-9408-5325753cd799-000000@email.amazonses.com>
References: <VI1PR0701MB2286D806027F541651B0BCE6F0C40@VI1PR0701MB2286.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <20190722201510.mom7xg2mdi2ulbby@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <VI1PR0701MB2286001A8E05E099C066BF61F0C70@VI1PR0701MB2286.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <20190723142414.4sc5o2j6dawblwrm@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <CABCOCHQrAQaK2XEfnC9EPwhsu4+Qe=tPyLe-bT9=7x9t1LN3BQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
X-SES-Outgoing: 2019.07.23-54.240.8.96
Feedback-ID: 1.us-east-1.DKmIRZFhhsBhtmFMNikgwZUWVrODEw9qVcPhqJEI2DA=:AmazonSES
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/kasEwhAVCPV9IV1MMR6KbwO0Q64>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Instance-data-format - shall we define etag and last-modified annotation ?
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: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 16:53:44 -0000

> The values are associated with a representation of a response
> to a request for some portion of the datastore contents.  E.g., a representation in XML must be a different
> ETag than a JSON representation (of the exact same datastore contents).

AFAIK, this is not required, and definitely not desirable. 

> I suggest new meta-data be defined that has semantics specific to datastore contents, not
> the HTTP representation of the response.

agreed. 

> IMO this meta-data is not really needed inside an instance file, but if included, then the values
> should be associated with the representation (the instance file) and not the datastores.

unsure, but inclined to think that it should be the same value that the target device would return. 


Kent // contributor