Re: [Netconf] [partial-lock] privilege of partial-lock

[Balazs Lengyel <[e-mail]>]

Hello Washam,
I am not sure I understood your question correctly, but still see my reply below:
regards Balazs

fanhuaxiang 90002624 wrote:
> Hi,
>    partial-lock only allow a user on a session to operate in the same time, how about the same user with many sessions?
BALAZS: A user can have multiple sessions, but partial-locks are connected to one specific 
session, the same way as global (RFC4741) locks. We wanted to follow the design of the global 
locks. Also this ensures that a lock is always released when a session terminates. If we 
connected the lock to a user, it would be harder to ensure that the lock is always released 
correctly, that a lock doesn't stay hanging.
>    since the scope of patial-lock cover some nodes and their subnodes, how about I lock and delete one node, and 
another people add it. the spec allow this to happen, does it lead to inconsistency?
BAFrom [e-mail]  Wed Oct 15 08:15:08 2008
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
X-Original-To: [e-mail]
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8AF628C257;
	Wed, 15 Oct 2008 08:15:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: [e-mail]
Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B14B28C252
	for <[e-mail]>; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 08:15:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.235
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.014, 
	BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id N9LmTAPLW5MO for <[e-mail]>;
	Wed, 15 Oct 2008 08:15:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se (mailgw4.ericsson.se [193.180.251.62])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FCDB3A6C6E
	for <[e-mail]>; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 08:15:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se (unknown [127.0.0.1])
	by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id
	326DF200F4; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:15:47 +0200 (CEST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3e-aae89bb000007a96-7a-48f609230e0e
Received: from esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.123])
	by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id
	125F4206B6; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:15:47 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.174]) by
	esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); 
	Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:15:46 +0200
Received: from [159.107.197.224] ([159.107.197.224]) by
	esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); 
	Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:15:46 +0200
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:15:46 +0200
From: Balazs Lengyel <[e-mail]>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (X11/20070604)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: fanhuaxiang 90002624 <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Oct 2008 15:15:46.0463 (UTC)
	FILETIME=[E613A2F0:01C92ED8]
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Netconf] [partial-lock] privilege of partial-lock
X-BeenThere: [e-mail]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>,
	<mailto:[e-mail]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/netconf>
List-Post: <mailto:[e-mail]>
List-Help: <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>,
	<mailto:[e-mail]?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]

Hello Washam,
I am not sure I understood your question correctly, but still see my reply below:
regards Balazs

fanhuaxiang 90002624 wrote:
> Hi,
>    partial-lock only allow a user on a session to operate in the same time, how about the same user with many sessions?
BALAZS: A user can have multiple sessions, but partial-locks are connected to one specific 
session, the same way as global (RFC4741) locks. We wanted to follow the design of the global 
locks. Also this ensures that a lock is always released when a session terminates. If we 
connected the lock to a user, it would be harder to ensure that the lock is always released 
correctly, that a lock doesn't stay hanging.
>    since the scope of patial-lock cover some nodes and their subnodes, how about I lock and delete one node, and 
another people add it. the spec allow this to happen, does it lead to inconsistenLAZS: Yes this can happen, and no we don't consider this as inconsistent. As described in the 
draft the user should lock the parent node of the object he wants to delete/create to avoid the 
situation you mention.
We could have allowed locking not existing nodes, however that is also a somewhat surprising 
behavior.
> 
> Regards,
> Washam
> ******************************************************************************************
>  This email and its attachments contain confidential information from HUAWEI, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the information contained here in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it!
>  *****************************************************************************************
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf

-- 
Balazs Lengyel                       Ericsson Hungary Ltd.
TSP System Manager
ECN: 831 7320                        Fax: [phone]
Tel: [phone]     email: [e-mail]
_______________________________________________
Netconf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf


cy?
BALAZS: Yes this can happen, and no we don't consider this as inconsistent. As described in the 
draft the user should lock the parent node of the object he wants to delete/create to avoid the 
situation you mention.
We could have allowed locking not existing nodes, however that is also a somewhat surprising 
behavior.
> 
> Regards,
> Washam
> ******************************************************************************************
>  This email and its attachments contain confidential information from HUAWEI, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the information contained here in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it!
>  *****************************************************************************************
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf

-- 
Balazs Lengyel                       Ericsson Hungary Ltd.
TSP System Manager
ECN: 831 7320                        Fax: [phone]
Tel: [phone]     email: [e-mail]
_______________________________________________
Netconf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf