[netconf] Re: draft-ietf-netconf-privcand private candidate | <compare> on private-candidate(s)

["James Cumming (Nokia)" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Dylan,

Coupled with the other feedback I believe this should be a little clearer in the -05 version.  Would you mind giving it your review?

I am hesitant to list all available combinations as this is slightly non-extensible language.

Thanks

James


From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Date: Thursday, 19 September 2024 at 12:14
To: James Cumming (Nokia) <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: draft-ietf-netconf-privcand private candidate | <compare> on private-candidate(s)
Hi James

I misunderstood the intention of the original wording (hence I think this part needs another wording). I re-read the draft and particularly chapter 4.7.2.4.

What about this wording:


A <compare> [RFC9144<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-netconf-privcand-03.html#RFC9144>] operation MAY be performed between the current point of the private candidate against one of:

  1.  The initial creation point of the private candidate's branch
  2.  The last update point of the private candidate's branch
  3.  The running configuration

This is detailed in Section 4.7.2.4.

Cordialement / Regards.

Dylan SADOUN
[phone]
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

De : James Cumming (Nokia) <[e-mail]>
Envoyé : vendredi 13 septembre 2024 23:43
À : SADOUN Dylan DTSI/DTR <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Objet : Re: draft-ietf-netconf-privcand private candidate | <compare> on private-candidate(s)

CAUTION : This email originated outside the company. Do not click on any links or open attachments unless you are expecting them from the sender.
ATTENTION : Cet e-mail provient de l'extérieur de l'entreprise. Ne cliquez pas sur les liens ou n'ouvrez pas les pièces jointes à moins de connaitre l'expéditeur.

Hi Dylan,

I don’t think the proposed wording is correct.  It implies (at least to me) that you could compare between the last update point of the private candidate and the initial creation point of the private candidate (and not involve the current point of the private candidate at all).  This was not the intention of the original wording.

I’ve added the RFC into the text for the upcoming -05 as you suggest.

Thanks

James


From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Tuesday, 30 July 2024 at 08:01
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: draft-ietf-netconf-privcand private candidate | <compare> on private-candidate(s)

Hello



Quoting 4.5:



"A <compare> operation MAY be performed against:

  1.  The initial creation point of the private candidate's branch
  2.  Against the last update point of the private candidate's branch
  3.  Against the running configuration"



This phrasing seems a bit obscure to me... If these are 3 different points of comparison, wouldn't it be simpler rephrased as:



"A <compare> [RFC9144<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-netconf-privcand-03.html#RFC9144>] operation MAY be performed against two of:

  1.  The initial creation point of the private candidate's branch
  2.  The last update point of the private candidate's branch
  3.  The running configuration"



NB: I added the reference to RFC9144 as well.



Best regards,
Dylan Sadoun
Orange Restricted

Orange Restricted