Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6241 (5388)
Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Mon, 11 June 2018 17:19 UTC
Return-Path: <andy@yumaworks.com>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A413130E79 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jun 2018 10:19:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.61
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 dXbWWM5UojEC for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jun 2018 10:19:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x22a.google.com (mail-lf0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22a]) (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 8E8B2130E70 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Jun 2018 10:19:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id t134-v6so31733321lff.6 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Jun 2018 10:19:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=bsUpYPy7VqzjCHyhr9rKUqkj9tvSjq+1yK5tvVpYR9c=; b=0CNr+VCEuHVFtdq6xg5/AW2m/bsfdknP+rLMDuBq0Qyen77HiMB6UWLIY59Qo5nyry +jU0p9afRKXsn+WEdHp2BI2nXN513qbWzXVm8oTgU40orojFQlxCeYGIXM8Oh334zQvS 2eQVgOTzp6ZMcv/Kgmp5tCQmWVnmDMVIvUm7HxiKT7Zgo3WE2N0EOUuqchnxb2DQH1WD mSDvIdhm8nxFfSaOglCdUNCOxmV7Cv3ofttfDwVfP81NE88b4mODG8CTsQlZ2C/hErUO QSMGRQvFMradQRVLfbRMsvRPb+wZyTjf18i6KQGde/59oBOvp83ALkRaJD5EcGI/ymch NSgQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=bsUpYPy7VqzjCHyhr9rKUqkj9tvSjq+1yK5tvVpYR9c=; b=aF10pec70M9+flvJ6vpqJrp5pFfzw4kG5fFcBUncXUrs+vUVO+tWgwN96lxd1gI5TC cTQR51oDWZjbwybBqVJvLVD3ZaVJS7QOHaI/7g9ieX2FuXlHorIT7LGb8yMWkl4HvzS5 FIDBrSIzX5uTejl9yWpvfuKQX71OejVah538zh6caCUYzBS5j16h8t8V2DzsJO6g2wTM K3kg6peKbuqWORvj2xTv/pV76u7KitxtW++FrzCMDWrS2XYXvGQ8hnWdhabvVZiIVOSg iCFORKl1+ru/48M5kTb451wkLOaK6G457wZW0AnXU8WAgUvBwhosv/1OuAGjJuoLbpCA 8BEg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E127+3r6RVhPdJrV6kAiUHXKLNt/Rp7B2zNAzxx8jhnKg2ghOj0 j1LIMrEaT+k9JN7syNhnPsazAyL9gakjJJW7Yv9jrA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKLxcOhwJIsOzw+ZKbdT3g7KklF+dj7PqB/Ct3qcJBbptnxe3bLmcuIVg4Ro7qshhMViuywrrOxCEm3RJFs5CBI=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:129d:: with SMTP id 29-v6mr41144ljs.102.1528737547720; Mon, 11 Jun 2018 10:19:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a19:db96:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Jun 2018 10:19:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20180611153745.D1B5DB80E72@rfc-editor.org>
References: <20180611153745.D1B5DB80E72@rfc-editor.org>
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 10:19:06 -0700
Message-ID: <CABCOCHS1x0zPMf49GS1kAt6ufBUwpn_-zPvyR+BFaHfyEP6p2w@mail.gmail.com>
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: Rob Enns <rob.enns@gmail.com>, Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, Ignas Bagdonas <ibagdona@gmail.com>, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>, Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>, Jonathan Hansford <jonathan@hansfords.net>, Netconf <netconf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007cad91056e60f2c4"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/-Hvg5Xpk7I0R6PJRDe5yyifGpmE>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6241 (5388)
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf/>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 17:19:14 -0000
Hi, This errata seems correct. Andy On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 8:37 AM, RFC Errata System < rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote: > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6241, > "Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5388 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Technical > Reported by: Jonathan Hansford <jonathan@hansfords.net> > > Section: 8.3.4.2 > > Original Text > ------------- > 8.3.4.2. <discard-changes> > > If the client decides that the candidate configuration is not to be > committed, the <discard-changes> operation can be used to revert the > candidate configuration to the current running configuration. > > <rpc message-id="101" > xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0"> > <discard-changes/> > </rpc> > > This operation discards any uncommitted changes by resetting the > candidate configuration with the content of the running > configuration. > > Corrected Text > -------------- > 8.3.4.2. <discard-changes> > > Description: > > If the client decides that the candidate configuration is not > to be committed, the <discard-changes> operation can be used to > revert the candidate configuration to the current running > configuration. > > This operation discards any uncommitted changes by resetting > the candidate configuration with the content of the running > configuration. > > Positive Response: > > If the device was able to satisfy the request, an <rpc-reply> > is sent that contains an <ok> element. > > Negative Response: > > An <rpc-error> element is included in the <rpc-reply> if the > request cannot be completed for any reason. > > Example: > > <rpc message-id="101" > xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0"> > <discard-changes/> > </rpc> > > <rpc-reply message-id="101" > xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0"> > <ok/> > </rpc-reply> > > Notes > ----- > RFC 6241 section 1.1 includes the following two definitions: > > o protocol operation: A specific remote procedure call, as used > within the NETCONF protocol. > > o remote procedure call (RPC): Realized by exchanging <rpc> and > <rpc-reply> messages. > > Positive and negative responses are detailed for all instances of an > operation within the RFC with the exception of <discard-changes>. > > Section 8.3.4.2 identifies <discard-changes> as an operation, and > appendices A and C identify "rollback-failed" as an error-tag to be used > when the "Request to roll back some configuration change (via > rollback-on-error or <discard-changes> operations) was not completed for > some reason." > > This change clarifies that <discard-changes> requires an <rpc-reply>. > > Instructions: > ------------- > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC6241 (draft-ietf-netconf-4741bis-10) > -------------------------------------- > Title : Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) > Publication Date : June 2011 > Author(s) : R. Enns, Ed., M. Bjorklund, Ed., J. Schoenwaelder, > Ed., A. Bierman, Ed. > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : Network Configuration > Area : Operations and Management > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG >
- Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6241… Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6241… Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6241… Kent Watsen
- [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6241 (53… RFC Errata System
- Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6241… Andy Bierman