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

Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Tue, 10 December 2013 15:59 UTC

Return-Path: <andy@yumaworks.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 4CE751AE098 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 07:59:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 UJWDrsneXTcw for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 07:59:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qe0-f44.google.com (mail-qe0-f44.google.com [209.85.128.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 385DD1ADFA4 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 07:59:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qe0-f44.google.com with SMTP id nd7so4279575qeb.31 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 07:59:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=vMW4d2VqaUD3aWRJ2uFr4beB+F3KnnwpXi9laXjznCU=; b=kVfouRi2BiOCe4v7bGxexAwZKU1J5JHle6MBwVJ3DHqKE6sxff4ZvQrV0EqJPjB+Pl 4tqWvKnalIY4CFYdwn+OjnQDHOsDGRfzy825MPKIetul+SDjU1SdCxPyXPKL7RbYQndu rPGnHhf2ZXLbrcoT3h7/oBUWscIJtu91OD7TBraS2rCzXpfTaSTzSnw4Rco5orsJ+Trl 49pgX0O+5as5ZmPdm9aBJlYut9AjiuWEJx0mBbwF/zX5NmzJoTNqhMydRm28JuqDF2b2 4z/+U4doGGewC452ZmGVDO+Ivfi5E0y26JlyEoChjnDx7kVONmMGe3at8cUb/Pdu6hsX I6Rg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnsHMDX9zwDJFz3HiyG6qHrmv1cCSTVVpeC+L3n/MDTpl6nhoUlHDaSEqQAGUsdBX6rgYLa
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.224.51.74 with SMTP id c10mr46576748qag.7.1386691142669; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 07:59:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.140.48.75 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 07:59:02 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20131210.153651.1182516105923318005.mbj@tail-f.com>
References: <52A62972.4010001@bwijnen.net> <20131210.132819.2303764306420511964.mbj@tail-f.com> <52A7244A.4090006@bwijnen.net> <20131210.153651.1182516105923318005.mbj@tail-f.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 07:59:02 -0800
Message-ID: <CABCOCHQfbsz8AHY0SRs+TOcmARenvTQ2Nn_JtAkynexxh-wozw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0158cb54f905f204ed303068
Cc: rob.enns@gmail.com, joelja@bogus.com, Netconf <netconf@ietf.org>
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: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 15:59:10 -0000

Hi,

I don't think these 3 reports are corrections.
They are editorial changes to the text.
I don't agree that the new terminology added "sequence of confirmed commits"
is correct.  There is just 1 netconf-confirmed-commit notification for
start & complete
sent out no matter how how many times the procedure is extended.

If the procedure ends with a cancel or timeout, there is only 1 original
commit
that is restored.  It is incorrect to think of this procedure as a series of
confirmed commits.  A commit that extends the procedure is not treated
the same as the commit that starts the procedure.


Andy


On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 6:36 AM, Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>; wrote:

> [fixing andy's address]
>
> "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <bertietf@bwijnen.net>; wrote:
> > Martin, did you mean to make this statement for all 3 reported errata,
> > or just for 3821?
>
> All three.
>
> Editorial errata is fine with me.
>
>
> /martin
>
>
> >
> > If anyone disagrees with Martin's assessment, pls speak up NOW.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Bert
> >
> > On 12/10/13 1:28 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > > "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <bertietf@bwijnen.net>; 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.
> > >
> > > I think the proposed text is fine, however I do not know if it
> > > qualifies as an errata.  IMO it clarifies the description of
> > > confirmed-commit, but the current text is not wrong.
> > >
> > >
> > > /martin
> > >
> > >
> >
>