Hi Manu,
thank you for sharing your view which matches mine. Even though this cannot be derived from TMF630/763, at least not with confidence.
Nevertheless, it's a practical advice, saving implementation and test effort.
I'll leave this topic open for a couple of days. Maybe others also share their views.
Best regards,
Roland
------------------------------
Roland Laznik
1&1 Versatel GmbH
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: Oct 17, 2025 12:00
From: MMH HH
Subject: TMF630/763 Mandatory PATCH Variants
Good question.
My understanding is that the conformance scripts use `application/json` as the header. In PATCH context is has been mentioned that this should be treated as like `application/merge-patch+json`.
In case of PATCH if application/json is provided then the default rule will be to apply the same rules as for JSON merge.
So, I guess,
- You are required to support PATCH for partial updates.
- You can choose one of the standard PATCH syntaxes -typically
application/merge-patch+json unless you have a specific reason to support others. - You don't have to support all three.
------------------------------
Manu
Original Message:
Sent: Oct 16, 2025 06:47
From: Roland Laznik
Subject: TMF630/763 Mandatory PATCH Variants
Dear Community,
which PATCH syntaxes must definitely be implemented?
- JSON Merge Patch as per RFC7396 and application/merge-patch+json
- JSON PATCH as per RFC6902 and application/json-patch+json
- JSON PATCH query as per TMF REST Guidelines Part 5 and application/json-patch-query+json
In other words: Would it be compliant to support only one syntax, e.g. only RFC7396?
Thank you and best regards,
Roland
------------------------------
Roland Laznik
1&1 Versatel GmbH
------------------------------