[netconf] RFC 6241 Ambiguity

"Jonathan Hansford" <jonathan@hansfords.net> Wed, 08 May 2019 13:33 UTC

Return-Path: <jonathan@hansfords.net>
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 960901200F6 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 May 2019 06:33:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.99
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.99 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=hansfords.net
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 BIt_Jg8vViPY for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 May 2019 06:33:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.myfast.site (mail.myfast.site [109.203.117.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 62680120058 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 May 2019 06:33:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hansfords.net; s=default; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Reply-To:Message-Id: Date:Subject:To:From:Sender:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=P0m5W860kxPUJUcLr8Cv0QXAQrzJFHRec7mTcCcV8lA=; b=KjcdTk7TUAxabeL9uQYqixg6d1 MPsJ4YZT0HzUUcktZ5ERYiBLEc0wCyOYqcBvghX6xIc3skPNCtYbR8pQsEblSZEojgSgoTQbkTsGw UJZGRPlPxW3DW/cpIpIKe9YBJP8VTlw0QtOw6WzqlLWquEUpPJZIgqI/E45pe++K8SZpjWp2StpQo Y17Q06SVbwWn28cxzHncsAtNisE5xVLcu8QnGAA2lryPTe/InpF+n9IuvLi4p1GPmfBjfa8uvLvRx eqEtsd4A6bUo9+RsMhg9ANAf4lE4yZRUNdf5mlFRUXVCVqvX/jl/DY19o0QpmJ81108omTqGtOW1A LwGZVQpA==;
Received: from [51.52.247.166] (port=63261 helo=[172.16.3.14]) by mail.myfast.site with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from <jonathan@hansfords.net>) id 1hOMh5-00073z-Nh for netconf@ietf.org; Wed, 08 May 2019 14:33:11 +0100
From: "Jonathan Hansford" <jonathan@hansfords.net>
To: "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 08 May 2019 13:33:10 +0000
Message-Id: <em35e87021-fa76-4888-a383-8b34e960175f@morpheus>
Reply-To: "Jonathan Hansford" <jonathan@hansfords.net>
User-Agent: eM_Client/7.2.34959.0
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------=_MB3FAEA49A-BB4E-4CAA-97B1-D65FB7407C58"
X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 190508-0, 08/05/2019), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - mail.myfast.site
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - hansfords.net
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: mail.myfast.site: authenticated_id: jonathan@hansfords.net
X-Authenticated-Sender: mail.myfast.site: jonathan@hansfords.net
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/EGW7VD3Bo5uNYIlFoj4b_cGLtCI>
Subject: [netconf] RFC 6241 Ambiguity
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF WG 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: Wed, 08 May 2019 13:33:17 -0000

Hi,

In RFC 6241:

Section 8.4.1 states "If the session issuing the confirmed commit is 
terminated for any reason before the confirm timeout expires, the server 
MUST restore the configuration to its state before the confirmed commit 
was issued, unless the confirmed commit also  included a <persist> 
element."

Section 8.4.5.1 states the persist parameter makes "the confirmed commit 
survive a session termination".

Appendix C states the persist parameter "is used to make a confirmed 
commit persistent. A persistent confirmed commit is not aborted if the 
NETCONF session terminates. The only way to abort a persistent confirmed 
commit is to let the timer expire, or to use the <cancel-commit> 
operation."

However:

Section 7.8, Erratum 5397 states "If a NETCONF server receives a 
<close-session> request while processing a confirmed commit (Section 
8.4) for that session, regardless of whether the confirmed commit 
included a <persist> element, it MUST restore the configuration to its  
state before the confirmed commit was issued."

Section 7.9, Erratum 5397 states "If a NETCONF server receives a 
<kill-session> request while processing a confirmed commit (Section 8.4) 
for that session, regardless of whether the confirmed commit included a 
<persist> element, it MUST restore the configuration to its  state 
before the confirmed commit was issued."

Section 8.4.1 states "If the device reboots for any reason before the 
confirm timeout expires, the server MUST restore the configuration to 
its state before the confirmed commit was issued."

So:

Is the use of <close-session> or <kill-session>, or the device 
rebooting, not considered to be the session being "terminated for any 
reason"? Or is it the case that "the only way to abort a persistent 
confirmed commit is to let the timer expire, or to use the 
<cancel-commit> operation"?

Jonathan

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus