[Netconf] Two questions about the usage of confirmed commit and confirming commit in RFC6241

"Guopeipei (Peipei Guo)" <guopeipei@huawei.com> Thu, 25 May 2017 09:45 UTC

Return-Path: <guopeipei@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95436128B90 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 May 2017 02:45:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 IPg1wvWh97Bd for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 May 2017 02:45:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA19212EA8D for <netconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 May 2017 02:44:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO LHREML710-CAH.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DNT40262; Thu, 25 May 2017 09:44:54 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML414-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.75) by LHREML710-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Thu, 25 May 2017 10:44:53 +0100
Received: from NKGEML513-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.160]) by nkgeml414-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Thu, 25 May 2017 17:44:48 +0800
From: "Guopeipei (Peipei Guo)" <guopeipei@huawei.com>
To: "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Netconf] Two questions about the usage of confirmed commit and confirming commit in RFC6241
Thread-Index: AdLVOyY5mf3xlBIJSJeD+ovOaEu+uw==
Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 09:44:47 +0000
Message-ID: <9FC7EF52C614284C896188640F8C655FB6F1C097@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.134.137.162]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9FC7EF52C614284C896188640F8C655FB6F1C097nkgeml513mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A090206.5926A798.0020, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.1.160, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: eb4b0aad8ffd229f5e15fc47ce66273c
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/8P8v3r4Laz2faBYK795uVfPeS7Y>
Subject: [Netconf] Two questions about the usage of confirmed commit and confirming commit in RFC6241
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 25 May 2017 09:45:03 -0000

Hi All,

In RFC6241 section 8.4.1, about the persist and persist-id description:
   If the <persist> element is not given in the confirmed commit
   operation, any follow-up commit and the confirming commit MUST be
   issued on the same session that issued the confirmed commit.  If the
   <persist> element is given in the confirmed <commit> operation, a
   follow-up commit and the confirming commit can be given on any
   session, and they MUST include a <persist-id> element with a value
   equal to the given value of the <persist> element.

   If the server also advertises the :startup capability, a
   <copy-config> from running to startup is also necessary to save the
   changes to startup.

Question 1: For below two operations, whether step2 rpc will confirm previous step 1 confirmed commit?
Step 1: user send below rpc.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rpc message-id="101" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
  <commit>
    <confirmed/>
    <persist>IQ,d4668</persist>
  </commit>
</rpc>

Step 2: user resend below rpc.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rpc message-id="101" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
  <commit>
    <confirmed/>
    <persist>IQ,d4668</persist>
  </commit>
</rpc>


Question 2: Whether below rpc is valid or not? I think it is invalid. It should not have <persis-id> and <confirmed> in one rpc at same time.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rpc message-id="101" xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
  <commit>
    <confirmed/>
    <persist-id>IQ,d4668</persist-id>
  </commit>
</rpc>

Thanks!