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

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Mon, 13 January 2014 15:50 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF0C71AE115 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 07:50:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.038
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.038 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 nOwi6JYQ5Kx8 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 07:50:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA36A1AE098 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 07:50:46 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=9476; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1389628236; x=1390837836; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references: in-reply-to; bh=n4o2CFHuysLx2sxc6KRi1ri2/Zklge+0JuZLVwOJbCA=; b=hN4T9uG5IA8QHmEk1L0J5vXamVSzDOk6CSiXKb9lej+TC9kyBzzkDeET TJdiQKN8vrklOIBaUOemaFBm3BWAyJPD6KS2CLAC8WcZrKkPao5IUYPB5 KnsngTXXBKl0ZSvJFn2lgxqbNDfQkryhQbzdyEIHzz9vgJ9fTsCGr9+20 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiMFAGYK1FKQ/khN/2dsb2JhbABAGoMLOLl1T4EUFnSCJQEBAQQBAQEqQQoRCxgJFggHCQMCAQIBFR8RBgEMBgIBAQWHew02qnaZUBeOJRACAVaENwSYF4ZFi1CDLjs9
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,653,1384300800"; d="scan'208,217";a="2900584"
Received: from ams-core-4.cisco.com ([144.254.72.77]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Jan 2014 15:50:34 +0000
Received: from [10.60.67.85] (ams-bclaise-8914.cisco.com [10.60.67.85]) by ams-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s0DFoYIc001234; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 15:50:34 GMT
Message-ID: <52D40B4A.4050001@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 16:50:34 +0100
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jonathan Hansford <Jonathan@hansfords.net>, netconf@ietf.org
References: <20131206100737.B33EB7FC383@rfc-editor.org> <52A62972.4010001@bwijnen.net> <20131209210752.GA70828@elstar.local> <52A635DC.1040708@hansfords.net> <aba8d6040202226fbea7140d0fd29968@imap.plus.net>
In-Reply-To: <aba8d6040202226fbea7140d0fd29968@imap.plus.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050208090408000702070201"
Subject: Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6241 (3821)
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 15:50:50 -0000

On 10/12/2013 12:22, Jonathan Hansford wrote:
>
> Is there any way of adding Notes to an existing erratum? I cannot find 
> one.
>
Done.

Regards, Benoit
>
> For the record:
>
> Erratum 3821:
> This erratum seeks to clarify the meaning of the term "confirmed 
> commit" for those not familiar with the use of the term within JUNOS. 
> In particular, that the use of "confirmed" is not in the sense of the 
> adjective (meaning "firmly established") but rather that the commit 
> needs to be confirmed. It also emphasises that a "confirming commit" 
> cannot be reverted. Finally it identifies that it is possible to have 
> a sequence of "confirmed commits" prior to a "confirming commit" and 
> that, should no "confirming commit" be received, the configuration 
> will revert to the state prior to the first "confirmed commit" in the 
> sequence.
>
> Erratum 3822:
> This erratum seeks to clarify that <cancel-commit> will cancel all 
> configuration changes arising from a sequence of "confirmed commits".
>
> Erratum 3823:
> This erratum seeks to clarify that the use of the "persist" parameter 
> will persist all configuration changes arising from a sequence of 
> "confirmed commits".
>
> On 2013-12-09 21:27, Jonathan Hansford wrote:
>
>> Apologies,
>>
>> This was my first submission of errata and they came out of my September
>> email and the subsequent thread about confirmed commits
>> (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netconf/current/msg08314.html).
>> Consequently there has already been some discussion around the issue.
>> The points I was seeking to clarify related to the definition of the
>> term "Confirmed commit" (something that makes sense to those who have
>> had exposure to JUNOS but appeared counter-intuitive to me in that a
>> confirmed commit is one that hasn't yet been confirmed) and the fact
>> that it is possible to have a sequence of confirmed commits prior to the
>> confirming commit. I'm happy to add that text to the errata.
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>> On 09/12/2013 21:07, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 09:34:58PM +0100, Bert Wijnen (IETF) wrote:
>>>> We have a set of 3 new errata reported to RFC6241. See: 
>>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6241&rec_status=15&presentation=table 
>>>> We would like to hear from the authors/editors what their opinion 
>>>> is on the reported errata. It is probably best to report your views 
>>>> to the netconf mailing list. but if you rather disuss it here 
>>>> first, that is OK too. We probably have to repeat the discussion on 
>>>> the mlist later if we do, so best to do it on the mailing list. It 
>>>> will hopefully trigger views from others aswell.
>>> I think it would help a lot if there would be a motivation or some 
>>> sort of an explanation in addition to the OLD NEW text. As it is, I 
>>> have to guess what the submitter wants to achieve with these errata. 
>>> Since these are technical errata, it should be possible to describe 
>>> the problem/bug that is being fixed. It seems that the submitter is 
>>> trying to address multiple issues in those changes. Anyway, an 
>>> explanation would have been nice to have. /js
>> _______________________________________________
>> Netconf mailing list
>> Netconf@ietf.org  <mailto:Netconf@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> Netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf