Thanks Kent. My personally opinion is: it might be RFC6241’s errata. The reasons are: 1. RFC6020/7950 is more clear than RFC6241 for the usage of error-tag. And it is a MUST rule for Payload Parsing in YANG 1.0 and YANG 1.1. 2. RFC6241 is just give it as the example when define the well-known error-tag “invalid-value” and “bad-element”.
Hi Andy, Eric, What is your opinion? Regards, Peipei Guo 发件人: netmod [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 Kent Watsen 发送时间: 2017年2月13日 23:34 收件人: Peipei Guo; Rohit pobbathi; [email protected] 主题: Re: [netmod] Conflicting usage scenario for "invalid-value" error-tag between RFC 6241 & RFC 6020 By "personally, I think YANG got it wrong and so it should be fixed there", I'm suggesting that this might be RFC 7950/6020 errata. But it is just my opinion, whether it matches group consensus remains to be seen... Kent On 2/13/17, 3:13 AM, "Peipei Guo" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Kent, Your conclusion is conflict with the above analysis. So do you means YANG RFC7950/6020 should be correct, RFC6241 is wrong and should fix it. Right? Regards, Peipei Guo 发件人: Kent Watsen 已发送: 2月11日星期六 上午2:56 主题: Re: [netmod] Conflicting usage scenario for "invalid-value" error-tag between RFC 6241 & RFC 6020 收件人: Rohit pobbathi, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Hi Rohit, On one hand, this seems like a protocol issue, so opting for NETCONF's definitions makes sense. On the other hand, RFC 6241 is just defining the error-tag without mandating when it's used, whereas RFC 7950 is specifying when it's to be used, so opting for YANG's normative language makes sense (it does no harm). Personally, I think YANG got it wrong and so it should be fixed there. Kent // as a contributor On 2/10/17, 9:25 AM, "Rohit pobbathi" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi, Repeating a query about RFC Section conflict for the usage of error-tag usage during leaf data value mismatch in range/length/pattern. RFC 6241 Appendix A. NETCONF Error List – provides the below description for “invalid-value” & “bad-element” error-tag: invalid-value error-type: protocol, application error-severity: error error-info: none Description: The request specifies an unacceptable value for one or more parameters. error-tag: bad-element error-type: protocol, application error-severity: error error-info: <bad-element> : name of the element w/ bad value Description: An element value is not correct; e.g., wrong type, out of range, pattern mismatch. RFC 6020 Section 8.3.1. Payload Parsing o If a leaf data value does not match the type constraints for the leaf, including those defined in the type's "range", "length", and "pattern" properties, the server MUST reply with an "invalid-value" error-tag in the rpc-error, and with the error- app-tag and error-message associated with the constraint, if any exist. For leaf data value mismatch in range/length/pattern there is conflict in the error-tag suggested by RFC 6241 & RFC 6020. Please confirm which is the right error-tag to be used in a standard Netconf Server implementation. Regards, Rohit Pobbathi
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
