[netconf] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-netconf-privcand-08.txt

[Per Andersson <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Rob, Qin, Quifang, are your review comments addressed by
this document update?


--
Per and Kent

On Wed, Jan 14, 2026 at 5:55 PM Kent Watsen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Great to see that there has been some activity on this draft since IETF 124.
>
> Qin, are your comments below addressed?
>
> Also, Rob (CC-ed), the 124 Minutes show that you were going to check to see if your comments were addressed.  Have you had a chance to do that yet?
>
> Kent (and Per)
>
>
>
> On Nov 20, 2025, at 4:42 PM, James Cumming (Nokia) <james.cumming=[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Thanks Qin,
>
> Some comments inline then.  Thanks for the review as always!
>
> James
>
>
> From: Qin Wu <[e-mail]>
> Date: Sunday, 9 November 2025 at 22:45
> To: James Cumming (Nokia) <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> Subject: RE: [netconf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netconf-privcand-08.txt
>
> Hi, James:
>
>
>
> 发件人: James Cumming (Nokia) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> 发送时间: 2025年11月6日 7:18
> 收件人: Qin Wu <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> 主题: Re: [netconf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netconf-privcand-08.txt
>
>
>
> Hi Qin,
>
>
>
> Thank you for the feedback, and so quickly after the meeting.  Much appreciated.
>
>
>
> I have a question about suggestion 1 below.  It is easy to enumerate the list of course, but I wonder whether you (and the WG) feel that doing so might give an impression of an ordered list of importance, or some sort of decision tree, whereas, each of these items I envisage as equal in importance/priority?
> [Qin Wu] I think you need to give each item equal importance/priority, My worry is you are unable to provide a complete list.
> [JGC: Agreed, that is why we ended up with the bullet list.  It sounds like this is still the right way forward]
>
>
>
> For point 2, we had originally considered this to be implementation specific.  If the WG feel that we need to expose this in a standard way (?) then the authors will need to discuss, however, my initial thought would be a metadata annotation so that we avoid impacting device schema.  This would involve another annotation to the <get> and <get-data> RPCs though to turn on/off this annotation (in a similar way that <with-origin/> works on the operational datastore.  Do you have any initial feedback on that thought Qin?
> [Qin Wu] It is not clear to me whether making in-conflict maker readonly to the client is sufficient. I think we can make analogy between in-conflict maker handling and merge conflict resolving in the github,
> In case of merging conflict, the server might indicate to the client whether merge conflict is resolvable, if not resolvable, there is nothing the client can do about it. In case the merge conflict resolvable,
> The client need to edit the content that is in conflict and click the button “Resolve conflict”. I am not sure how this can be addressed using the CRUD operation extension.
> Maybe this is complicate to provide a design. In that case, I think you need to make clear how in-conflict marker is handled is not in the scope of this draft, make sense?
> [JGC: OK, thanks for the feedback.  Rob and I will look to see if this can be made any clearer]
>
>
>
> Thanks
> James
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Qin Wu <[e-mail]>
> Date: Monday, 3 November 2025 at 10:37
> To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> Cc: James Cumming (Nokia) <[e-mail]>
> Subject: RE: [netconf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netconf-privcand-08.txt
>
> Hi, James:
> Thank for the latest update and I have two comments:
> 1: In section 3.7.1, a list of node modification cases have been provided, I am wondering whether we need to enumerate all the cases for node modification or just provide as some examples, or separate it out?
> 2: Can you Provide an usage example of "in conflict" marker? How this "in conflict" marker is visible to the client?
>
> -Qin
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> 发送时间: 2025年11月2日 18:00
> 收件人: [e-mail]
> 抄送: [e-mail]
> 主题: [netconf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netconf-privcand-08.txt
>
> Internet-Draft draft-ietf-netconf-privcand-08.txt is now available. It is a work item of the Network Configuration (NETCONF) WG of the IETF.
>
>    Title:   NETCONF and RESTCONF Private Candidate Datastores
>    Authors: James Cumming
>             Robert Wills
>    Name:    draft-ietf-netconf-privcand-08.txt
>    Pages:   31
>    Dates:   2025-11-02
>
> Abstract:
>
>    This document provides a mechanism to extend the Network
>    Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) and RESTCONF protocol to support
>    multiple clients making configuration changes simultaneously and
>    ensuring that they commit only those changes that they defined.
>
>    This document addresses two specific aspects: The interaction with a
>    private candidate over the NETCONF and RESTCONF protocols and the
>    methods to identify and resolve conflicts between clients.
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-privcand/
>
> There is also an HTML version available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-netconf-privcand-08.html
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-netconf-privcand-08
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at:
> rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netconf mailing list -- [e-mail] To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> _______________________________________________
> netconf mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netconf mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]