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

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> wrote:

> [fixing andy's address]
>
> "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <[e-mail]> 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)" <[e-mail]> 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
> > >
> > >
> >
>