Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6241 (3821)

[Jonathan Hansford <[e-mail]>]

 

Is there any way of adding Notes to an existing erratum? I cannot
find one. For the record: 

Erratum 3821:
This erratum seeks to clarify
the meaning of the term "confirmed commit" for those not familiar with
the use of the term within JUNOS. In particular, that the use of
"confirmed" is not in the sense of the adjective (meaning "firmly
established") but rather that the commit needs to be confirmed. It also
emphasises that a "confirming commit" cannot be reverted. Finally it
identifies that it is possible to have a sequence of "confirmed commits"
prior to a "confirming commit" and that, should no "confirming commit"
be received, the configuration will revert to the state prior to the
first "confirmed commit" in the sequence.

Erratum 3822:
This erratum
seeks to clarify that <cancel-commit> will cancel all configuration
changes arising from a sequence of "confirmed commits".

Erratum
3823:
This erratum seeks to clarify that the use of the "persist"
parameter will persist all configuration changes arising from a sequence
of "confirmed commits". 

On 2013-12-09 21:27, Jonathan Hansford wrote:


> Apologies,
> 
> This was my first submission of errata and they came
out of my September 
> email and the subsequent thread about confirmed
commits 
>
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netconf/current/msg08314.html). 
>
Consequently there has already been some discussion around the issue. 
>
The points I was seeking to clarify related to the definition of the 
>
term "Confirmed commit" (something that makes sense to those who have 
>
had exposure to JUNOS but appeared counter-intuitive to me in that a 
>
confirmed commit is one that hasn't yet been confirmed) and the fact 
>
that it is possible to have a sequence of confirmed commits prior to the

> confirming commit. I'm happy to add that text to the errata.
> 
>
Jonathan
> 
> On 09/12/2013 21:07, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> 
>> On
Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 09:34:58PM +0100, Bert Wijnen (IETF) wrote: 
>>

>>> We have a set of 3 new errata reported to RFC6241. See:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6241&rec_status=15&presentation=table
[1] We would like to hear from the authors/editors what their opinion
is on the reported errata. It is probably best to report your views to
the netconf mailing list. but if you rather disuss it here first, that
is OK too. We probably have to repeat the discussion on the mlist later
if we do, so best to do it on the mailing list. It will hopefully
trigger views from others aswell.
>> I think it would help a lot if
there would be a motivation or some sort of an explanation in addition
to the OLD NEW text. As it is, I have to guess what the submitter wants
to achieve with these errata. Since these are technical errata, it
should be possible to describe the problem/bug that is being fixed. It
seems that the submitter is trying to address multiple issues in those
changes. Anyway, an explanation would have been nice to have. /js
> 
>
_______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
>
[e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf



Links:
------
[1]
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6241&amp;rec_status=15&amp;presentation=table