Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6241 (3821)
Jonathan Hansford <Jonathan@hansfords.net> Tue, 10 December 2013 11:22 UTC
Return-Path: <jonathan@hansfords.net>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA3391ADF6D for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 03:22:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
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 fGtJod7NZ81A for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 03:22:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from avasout04.plus.net (avasout04.plus.net [212.159.14.19]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 737E51ADF4B for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 03:22:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from webmail.plus.net ([84.93.237.98]) by avasout04 with smtp id znN81m00B283uBY01nN95M; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 11:22:10 +0000
X-CM-Score: 0.00
X-CNFS-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=C6LQl2/+ c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=BJaFPv9AyABFDM2hXLRoEA==:117 a=MEK23cO9Z3nTrtfM1ievvA==:17 a=0Bzu9jTXAAAA:8 a=dYCPD3cKDi0A:10 a=fEVyH4MXk-0A:10 a=0B8HqoTn75oA:10 a=lxldWUwtbAkA:10 a=6bkCdLdQAAAA:8 a=f0uUZFObAAAA:8 a=NcN8dwhvxXUA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=BqEg4_3jAAAA:8 a=YHJ6EVaUX2EDRBK0ssMA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=PgLAuiSjgOYA:10 a=mhd2NDuUijAA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=9FRUSnrXfWB8m8DxySUA:9 a=OGvLclL1o53Gvw_M:21 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10
X-AUTH: hansfords+us:2500
Received: from host-212-159-134-100.static.as13285.net ([212.159.134.100]) by webmail.plus.net with HTTP (HTTP/1.1 POST); Tue, 10 Dec 2013 11:22:08 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_f6ce1fce99e4399e2a8919b17a95cd29"
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 11:22:08 +0000
From: Jonathan Hansford <Jonathan@hansfords.net>
To: netconf@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <52A635DC.1040708@hansfords.net>
References: <20131206100737.B33EB7FC383@rfc-editor.org> <52A62972.4010001@bwijnen.net> <20131209210752.GA70828@elstar.local> <52A635DC.1040708@hansfords.net>
Message-ID: <aba8d6040202226fbea7140d0fd29968@imap.plus.net>
X-Sender: Jonathan@hansfords.net
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.7.4
X-Originating-IP: [212.159.134.100]
Subject: Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6241 (3821)
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 11:22:20 -0000
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 > Netconf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf Links: ------ [1] http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6241&rec_status=15&presentation=table
- [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6241 (38… RFC Errata System
- Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6241… Bert Wijnen (IETF)
- Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6241… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6241… Jonathan Hansford
- Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6241… Jonathan Hansford
- Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6241… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6241… Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6241… Bert Wijnen (IETF)
- Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6241… Jonathan Hansford
- Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6241… Bert Wijnen (IETF)
- Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6241… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6241… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6241… joel jaeggli
- Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6241… Andy Bierman
- Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6241… Andy Bierman
- Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6241… Jonathan Hansford
- Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6241… Andy Bierman
- Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6241… Andy Bierman
- Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6241… Jonathan Hansford
- Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6241… Jonathan Hansford
- Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6241… Andy Bierman
- Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6241… ietfdbh
- Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6241… Andy Bierman
- Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6241… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6241… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6241… Bert Wijnen (IETF)
- Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6241… Benoit Claise
- [Netconf] [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC62… RFC Errata System
- [Netconf] Fwd: [Errata Held for Document Update] … Benoit Claise
- Re: [netconf] [Errata Held for Document Update] R… Megan Ferguson
- Re: [netconf] [Errata Held for Document Update] R… Benoit Claise
- Re: [netconf] [Errata Held for Document Update] R… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netconf] [Errata Held for Document Update] R… Per Hedeland
- Re: [netconf] [Errata Held for Document Update] R… Per Hedeland
- Re: [netconf] [Errata Held for Document Update] R… jonathan
- Re: [netconf] [Errata Held for Document Update] R… Jonathan