Internet-Draft NETCONF Error Registries March 2026
Andersson & Valaphil Expires 3 September 2026 [Page]
Workgroup:
NETCONF
Internet-Draft:
draft-pamtv-netconf-error-registries-00
Published:
Intended Status:
Standards Track
Expires:
Authors:
P. Andersson
Ionio Systems
M. T. Valaphil
Equinix

NETCONF Error List and Error Identities Registries

Abstract

This document defines IANA registries for the NETCONF Error List and NETCONF Error Identities.

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

This Internet-Draft will expire on 3 September 2026.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

In order to have a canonical source for all NETCONF Error and NETCONF Error Identities, two IANA registries are defined. These registries can be extended and updated as needed.

It is an advantage for protocol evolution to have canonical sources to extend, instead of a set of documents that need to be compiled and referenced.

2. Conventions and Definitions

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

3. IANA Considerations

3.1. NETCONF Error List Registry

This document defines a registry for the NETCONF Error List defined in Appendix A of [RFC6241]. The name of the registry is "NETCONF Error List". The review policy for this registry is "IETF Review" [RFC5226]. The registry shall record the following for each entry:

  • error-tag, TBD

  • error-type, TBD

  • error-severity, TBD

  • error-info, auxilary information described as data nodes (XML tags).

  • Description

  • The reference for the document registering the value.

The initial contents of the registry is defined in [RFC6241] and inlined below:

error-tag:      in-use
error-type:     protocol, application
error-severity: error
error-info:     none
Description:    The request requires a resource that already is in
                use.

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:      too-big
error-type:     transport, rpc, protocol, application
error-severity: error
error-info:     none
Description:    The request or response (that would be generated) is
                too large for the implementation to handle.

error-tag:      missing-attribute
error-type:     rpc, protocol, application
error-severity: error
error-info:     <bad-attribute> : name of the missing attribute
                <bad-element> : name of the element that is supposed
                  to contain the missing attribute
Description:    An expected attribute is missing.

error-tag:      bad-attribute
error-type:     rpc, protocol, application
error-severity: error
error-info:     <bad-attribute> : name of the attribute w/ bad value
                <bad-element> : name of the element that contains
                  the attribute with the bad value
Description:    An attribute value is not correct; e.g., wrong type,
                out of range, pattern mismatch.

3.2. NETCONF Error Identities

This document defines a registry for NETCONF Error Identities. The name of the registry is "NETCONF Error Identities". The review policy for this registry is "IETF Review" [RFC5226]. The registry shall record the following for each entry:

  • Identity name.

  • Base identity, if applicable.

  • Additional information.

  • The reference for the document registering the value.

The initial contents of the registry is defined in [RFC8639] and [RFC8641] and inlined below:

dscp-unavailable
encoding-unsupported
filter-unsupported
insufficient-resources
replay-unsupported

filter-unsupported
insufficient-resources
no-such-subscription

no-such-subscription

datastore-not-subscribable
unchanging-selection

period-unsupported
update-too-big
synchronization-size

4. Normative References

[RFC2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC5226]
Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226, DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5226>.
[RFC6241]
Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6241>.
[RFC8174]
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.
[RFC8639]
Voit, E., Clemm, A., Gonzalez Prieto, A., Nilsen-Nygaard, E., and A. Tripathy, "Subscription to YANG Notifications", RFC 8639, DOI 10.17487/RFC8639, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8639>.
[RFC8641]
Clemm, A. and E. Voit, "Subscription to YANG Notifications for Datastore Updates", RFC 8641, DOI 10.17487/RFC8641, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8641>.

Acknowledgments

TODO acknowledge.

Authors' Addresses

Per Andersson
Ionio Systems
Mithun Thai Valaphil
Equinix