Re: [netconf] RFC 6241 Ambiguity

Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net> Wed, 12 June 2019 13:02 UTC

Return-Path: <0100016b4bc86abb-d69f575f-c2e7-4ce9-93a5-047262cbff75-000000@amazonses.watsen.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 9EDB1120115 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 06:02:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=amazonses.com
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 OWK_8cvIIlPg for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 06:02:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from a8-88.smtp-out.amazonses.com (a8-88.smtp-out.amazonses.com [54.240.8.88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E44BB1200E9 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 06:02:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple; s=6gbrjpgwjskckoa6a5zn6fwqkn67xbtw; d=amazonses.com; t=1560344554; h=From:Message-Id:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References:Feedback-ID; bh=NIln+sqBhRGrQSAjnPqQflI6OQ2qwmnlSzbn59XrbQE=; b=NM2h5SvGF9uvnbWmeuSK5p0Jk31+2uz0TjWkvVIafNAF2oniEFvQzWbZEbqJrEMv eOCzwA8zzo0eWC6XkTZjDuxwXjGZlDpYw1w59T8OPhnItBPws3f0mDzbVfUtqb760Sc jxvWpYyzFOJwuNsK1CToc1UM6/3aEBfiTFzGNE68=
From: Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>
Message-ID: <0100016b4bc86abb-d69f575f-c2e7-4ce9-93a5-047262cbff75-000000@email.amazonses.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_02F710F5-0B54-4A7C-AF72-D14A80C4D6B2"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 13:02:34 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CABCOCHQbUCPBu-wY_5sA2TUgsOFNGBtAtrYZ9crFJZV+=xo3Cw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
References: <em35e87021-fa76-4888-a383-8b34e960175f@morpheus> <0100016aa75956af-70018fb1-15f8-4394-8ffd-4f4d5b2d7b3f-000000@email.amazonses.com> <CABCOCHScSp8AEjcgSd7tX-Va45y51CxK-b_hO4nd3SzW9rTUKA@mail.gmail.com> <eme2e51d99-6140-4142-b89f-db5e4c6e2a88@morpheus> <0100016ab7a9af7e-cd7f776e-79e1-42a4-9c5d-d04aed0d8fa1-000000@email.amazonses.com> <emdf557a96-2926-4d87-83f9-2f8216ed652e@morpheus> <76ED75C8-AA1A-4A03-A382-0DE834C914A1@gmail.com> <0100016abd77bfe3-88ae515a-d7f9-41c7-b627-9c51bdf16213-000000@email.amazonses.com> <CABCOCHQ-SWFCzs-FzhLe=-n+j+-AEknTuv-nKJ4etFm0srig5w@mail.gmail.com> <884391D0-3F53-4F3D-BFB0-DD333D09507C@gmail.com> <CABCOCHTLzW+2mkau0KHSbprw0e7PjNFO6SZoPyXUzkKm7gsyow@mail.gmail.com> <00d101d51216$f807d120$e8177360$@hansfords.net> <E954A8E5-B241-4655-BF04-F987EC2870C2@gmail.com> <CABCOCHRKSjEFfRvdQWZEnqMQVQd_hNdrK2r4KByiaTbb8FL3aA@mail.gmail.com> <3B2E5975-26B3-4310-B718-9D8D3F0B0DDA@gmail.com> <CABCOCHTH8Ge6Yk3KdaX-sTmcs_Cx-1U4CEvL8Mt-oLFXUQUCug@mail.gmail.com> <0100016b482fc5f4-caf4b52b-416a-438f-9c47-68df526fb9b7-000000@email.amazonses.com> <CABCOCHQbUCPBu-wY_5sA2TUgsOFNGBtAtrYZ9crFJZV+=xo3Cw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-SES-Outgoing: 2019.06.12-54.240.8.88
Feedback-ID: 1.us-east-1.DKmIRZFhhsBhtmFMNikgwZUWVrODEw9qVcPhqJEI2DA=:AmazonSES
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/XO0-rRVx5JzkaQ2Nsnx1X4n_-2c>
Subject: Re: [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, 12 Jun 2019 13:02:37 -0000

>   a)  'persist' MUST span reboots.
>   b)  'persist' MUST NOT span reboots.
>   c) it is an implementation decision as to if 'persist' spans reboots.
> 
> [...]
> 
> IMO the text most strongly supports (b) [para 6].
> It could be argued that [para 5] supports (a) because a server reboot does cause a session
> termination, but IMO this was not the intent of para 5. It suggests the server is still running
> but the client session is terminated
> 
> [...]
> 
> I think (c) is OK since it not 100% clear what the scope of "unless" is in para 5.

If (a) is not possible, and (b) excludes [IoT] devices that must reboot for each commit, then (c) becomes the front runner.

The text could be curt and just state “it is an implementation decision as to if 'persist' spans reboots.”

But it might be helpful to elaborate along the lines of “devices that require a reboot in order to commit SHOULD..., other devices MAY...”. 

As to how a client can determine the server’s behavior, given this is just Errata, it would be inappropriate to define a ‘feature’.   How about:

“This document does not provide a mechanism enabling a client to determine if a server supports the ‘persist’ behavior over reboots, or if a server requires a reboot in order to effect configuration changes.“

???

Kent // contributor