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

Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Tue, 10 December 2013 16:15 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 BAB951ADF4F for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 08:15:20 -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 XMubIPNYZ766 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 08:15:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qc0-f171.google.com (mail-qc0-f171.google.com [209.85.216.171]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0223C1ADFC3 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 08:15:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qc0-f171.google.com with SMTP id c9so4152979qcz.30 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 08:15:12 -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=EMCnngqgE9H3bQ63hg7cGh+Ngv5bjs0vaRC7ryCZGUs=; b=gIYSpZTxg8DZqOfhn6YbXxdQZgaj8A27G7XNf/uknkUQ18kK2Za76bg3s1NjhqLbmb 2ThqhCjDagnVQzkrxblkoYgsdW7mZ+ctEBeFnydWm/lzXeMG3hWP4yMquts0BUKscYBu M31bqi3TxuH4r5U3d+Krv25N6i7H5lpIyg8eYVLgsQWHLuhQCo/HZZB4HV7aNN6vHNEL QfyMba/VUAzqNwjexdPIXQGH8e8GHfsOBIv0bgjA7nCLkCg7J8sFk092i/n6ckGadslj /dNAdcgyIhIvkARIftbzHdxquP50x5bVUIfjxbVQjzdNekAuP6HuyVoQfNj7GTK4dhgR 3CaA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk34loWcV13dqj9+coUh/5nIxv3sXB7CbFqugYr1uLSHvTZGDecGNss4Wjza6ZVCv2IC8tZ
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.224.39.15 with SMTP id d15mr45753836qae.36.1386692112544; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 08:15:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.140.48.75 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 08:15:12 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <cb13626ae792344d299ac437a00c906b@imap.plus.net>
References: <52A62972.4010001@bwijnen.net> <20131210.132819.2303764306420511964.mbj@tail-f.com> <52A7244A.4090006@bwijnen.net> <20131210.153651.1182516105923318005.mbj@tail-f.com> <CABCOCHQfbsz8AHY0SRs+TOcmARenvTQ2Nn_JtAkynexxh-wozw@mail.gmail.com> <cb13626ae792344d299ac437a00c906b@imap.plus.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 08:15:12 -0800
Message-ID: <CABCOCHS4BSR=46xcnWx02DQtXm6rtbJ69vHXwO9gReOPrist-g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
To: Jonathan Hansford <Jonathan@hansfords.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1134a56ac7fee604ed306a3a
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 16:15:20 -0000

On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Jonathan Hansford
<Jonathan@hansfords.net>wrote:

>
>
> On 2013-12-10 15:59, Andy Bierman wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>  Are you saying that the initial commit of the sequence (the confirmed
> commit?) is restored should the procedure be cancelled or timeout? Surely
> the commit that is restored is the one that preceded the confirmed commit.
>



The confirmed commit is the first <commit> that includes a <confirmed>
parameter.
The 2nd - Nth <commit> are extending the first commit operation.  The
server is still
obligated to revert the running config for the first commit (if it is
canceled or timed out).
This obligation is not removed because the commit is extended.  It is only
removed
if a confirming commit is received.



 Jonathan
>


Andy


>   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
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>
>