[netconf] Re: draft-ietf-netconf-privcand private candidate | <compare> on private-candidate(s)

[[e-mail]]

Hello James

 

Would you mind reviewing my remarks on the short <compare> paragraph on the
latest draft? I often find that a clearer wording avoids lengthy discussions
years after a draft is passed.

 

Cordialement / Regards.

 

Dylan SADOUN

[phone]

 <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail] 

 

De : [e-mail] <[e-mail]> 
Envoyé : vendredi 18 octobre 2024 17:37
À : James Cumming (Nokia) <[e-mail]>
Cc : [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Objet : [netconf] Re: draft-ietf-netconf-privcand private candidate |
<compare> on private-candidate(s)

 

Hi

 

I reviewed the last changes, but I still think the wording is hard to
understand, and maybe a little incorrect English-wise.

 

In the current draft, all available combinations are already listed, that is
why I did the same. If extensibility is the issue, maybe a sentence like
“Additional points of comparison may be added in future documents.” should
do?

 

Cordialement / Regards.

 

Dylan SADOUN

[phone]

 <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail] 

 

De : James Cumming (Nokia) <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> > 
Envoyé : jeudi 10 octobre 2024 20:10
À : SADOUN Dylan DTOF/DTR <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> >
Cc : [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> ;
[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> 
Objet : Re: draft-ietf-netconf-privcand private candidate | <compare> on
private-candidate(s)

 


CAUTION : This email originated outside the company. Do not click on any
links or open attachments unless you are expecting them from the sender. 


ATTENTION : Cet e-mail provient de l'extérieur de l'entreprise. Ne cliquez
pas sur les liens ou n'ouvrez pas les pièces jointes à moins de connaitre
l'expéditeur.

 

Thanks Dylan,

 

Coupled with the other feedback I believe this should be a little clearer in
the -05 version.  Would you mind giving it your review?

 

I am hesitant to list all available combinations as this is slightly
non-extensible language.

 

Thanks

 

James

 

 

From: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
<[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Date: Thursday, 19 September 2024 at 12:14
To: James Cumming (Nokia) <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> >
Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>  <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> >, [e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]>
<[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> >
Subject: RE: draft-ietf-netconf-privcand private candidate | <compare> on
private-candidate(s)

Hi James

 

I misunderstood the intention of the original wording (hence I think this
part needs another wording). I re-read the draft and particularly chapter
4.7.2.4.

 

What about this wording:

 

A <compare> [
<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.
org%2Farchive%2Fid%2Fdraft-ietf-netconf-privcand-03.html%23RFC9144&data=05%7
C02%7Cdylan.sadoun%40orange.com%7C03a4be0b1b31415512ef08dcef8ae551%7C90c7a20
af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638648627048016451%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb
3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C
%7C%7C&sdata=6SUXr0hnvC4WUwb2nj84EGmDUOqfFwXkqfMVvjY1DSI%3D&reserved=0>
RFC9144] operation MAY be performed between the current point of the private
candidate against one of:

1.	The initial creation point of the private candidate's branch
2.	The last update point of the private candidate's branch
3.	The running configuration

 

This is detailed in Section 4.7.2.4.

 

Cordialement / Regards.

 

Dylan SADOUN

[phone]

 <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail] 

 

De : James Cumming (Nokia) <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> > 
Envoyé : vendredi 13 septembre 2024 23:43
À : SADOUN Dylan DTSI/DTR <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> >; [e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> ; [e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> 
Objet : Re: draft-ietf-netconf-privcand private candidate | <compare> on
private-candidate(s)

 


CAUTION : This email originated outside the company. Do not click on any
links or open attachments unless you are expecting them from the sender. 


ATTENTION : Cet e-mail provient de l'extérieur de l'entreprise. Ne cliquez
pas sur les liens ou n'ouvrez pas les pièces jointes à moins de connaitre
l'expéditeur.

 

Hi Dylan,

 

I don’t think the proposed wording is correct.  It implies (at least to me)
that you could compare between the last update point of the private
candidate and the initial creation point of the private candidate (and not
involve the current point of the private candidate at all).  This was not
the intention of the original wording.  

 

I’ve added the RFC into the text for the upcoming -05 as you suggest.

 

Thanks

 

James

 

 

From: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
<[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Date: Tuesday, 30 July 2024 at 08:01
To: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>  <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> >, [e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]>
<[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> >
Subject: draft-ietf-netconf-privcand private candidate | <compare> on
private-candidate(s)

Hello

 

Quoting 4.5:

 

"A <compare> operation MAY be performed against:

1.	The initial creation point of the private candidate's branch
2.	Against the last update point of the private candidate's branch
3.	Against the running configuration"

 

This phrasing seems a bit obscure to me... If these are 3 different points
of comparison, wouldn't it be simpler rephrased as:

 

"A <compare> [
<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.
org%2Farchive%2Fid%2Fdraft-ietf-netconf-privcand-03.html%23RFC9144&data=05%7
C02%7Cdylan.sadoun%40orange.com%7C03a4be0b1b31415512ef08dcef8ae551%7C90c7a20
af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638648627048040428%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb
3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C
%7C%7C&sdata=BrVjvUaOVAEKeADB4elLZEP2sVJ%2FvCa4111reEnP4mY%3D&reserved=0>
RFC9144] operation MAY be performed against two of:

1.	The initial creation point of the private candidate's branch
2.	The last update point of the private candidate's branch
3.	The running configuration"

 

NB: I added the reference to RFC9144 as well.

 

Best regards,

Dylan Sadoun

Orange Restricted

 

Orange Restricted

 

Orange Restricted

 

Orange Restricted