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

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

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: [phone]         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>