Re: [netconf] RFC 6241 Ambiguity

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 6:02 AM Kent Watsen <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>   a)  'persist' MUST span reboots.
>>   b)  'persist' MUST NOT span reboots.
>>   c) it is an implementation decision as to if 'persist' spans reboots.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>
> IMO the text most strongly supports (b) [para 6].
> It could be argued that [para 5] supports (a) because a server reboot does
> cause a session
> termination, but IMO this was not the intent of para 5. It suggests the
> server is still running
> but the client session is terminated
>
> [...]
>
>
> I think (c) is OK since it not 100% clear what the scope of "unless" is in para 5.
>
>
> If (a) is not possible, and (b) excludes [IoT] devices that must reboot
> for each commit, then (c) becomes the front runner.
>
> The text could be curt and just state “it is an implementation decision
> as to if 'persist' spans reboots.”
>
> But it might be helpful to elaborate along the lines of “devices that
> require a reboot in order to commit SHOULD..., other devices MAY...”.
>
> As to how a client can determine the server’s behavior, given this is just
> Errata, it would be inappropriate to define a ‘feature’.   How about:
>
> “This document does not provide a mechanism enabling a client to determine
> if a server supports the ‘persist’ behavior over reboots, or if a server
> requires a reboot in order to effect configuration changes.“
>
>
>

I object to changing RFC 6241 with an Errata if it attempts to enforce
protocol behavior
that the original RFC does not actually specify.  (c) is correct for an
Errata because the original RFC
is under-specified.  Or perhaps: (d) 'persist' MAY span reboots



> ???
>
> Kent // contributor
>


Andy