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

Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> Thu, 12 December 2013 20:13 UTC

Return-Path: <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
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 B416D1AE410 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 12:13:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.251
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.251 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] 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 ZzD_0887j1b0 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 12:13:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 769321AE1EE for <netconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 12:13:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (demetrius2.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.47]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDF74200A8; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 21:13:25 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius2.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fT9fS6KXsJyg; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 21:13:25 +0100 (CET)
Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18E70200A7; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 21:13:24 +0100 (CET)
Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 87B0E29FD955; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 21:13:19 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 21:13:19 +0100
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
To: ietfdbh <ietfdbh@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <20131212201319.GC81732@elstar.local>
Mail-Followup-To: ietfdbh <ietfdbh@comcast.net>, 'Andy Bierman' <andy@yumaworks.com>, 'Jonathan Hansford' <Jonathan@hansfords.net>, 'Rob Enns' <rob.enns@gmail.com>, 'joel jaeggli' <joelja@bogus.com>, 'Netconf' <netconf@ietf.org>
References: <52A7244A.4090006@bwijnen.net> <20131210.153651.1182516105923318005.mbj@tail-f.com> <CABCOCHQfbsz8AHY0SRs+TOcmARenvTQ2Nn_JtAkynexxh-wozw@mail.gmail.com> <cb13626ae792344d299ac437a00c906b@imap.plus.net> <CABCOCHS4BSR=46xcnWx02DQtXm6rtbJ69vHXwO9gReOPrist-g@mail.gmail.com> <7de2779d935aae627d3c3b030466b1dc@imap.plus.net> <CABCOCHQCayT6UXuh_k9FSZH4iRCoPP7RoBwar1RKAFVM-3T0SQ@mail.gmail.com> <80d82e162c729b696be4ddd23dc624d2@imap.plus.net> <CABCOCHT=2SRjhXwrGwZK=7QbkVkKhhSv8WWXwoGr83r1JC43kA@mail.gmail.com> <004e01cef75e$7bb29250$7317b6f0$@comcast.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <004e01cef75e$7bb29250$7317b6f0$@comcast.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: 'Rob Enns' <rob.enns@gmail.com>, 'joel jaeggli' <joelja@bogus.com>, 'Netconf' <netconf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6241 (3821)
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
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: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 20:13:35 -0000

On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 12:20:40PM -0500, ietfdbh wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> The clarification text seems to be modifying what a conformant
> implementation must do, and obviously the WG members haven't reached
> consensus on just what that must be. 
> 

I do not thing this is a fair assessment of the situation.

I believe people do agree on the intended behaviour; there is perhaps
less agreement on how to describe it better. Jonathan's proposal in
the errata helps somewhat but I believe to really describe this well,
we actually need to discuss the various situations in more detail.

> To me, that says a -bis is called for, including WGLC and IETF LCs, to
> change the conformance requirements of the standard.

I do not think this is the case. In other parts of the IETF, there are
sometimes implementation guideline documents that clear up some of the
issues. I am not saying we need to produce one but this would be an
option to deal with this case. The reason I am not exiting about such
an implementation guideline document is that confirmed commit by
itself does not justify to write one. If more things like this pop up,
we might reach the point where such a document could be reasonable to
produce.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>