Re: [netconf] RFC 6241 Ambiguity

["Jonathan Hansford" <[e-mail]>]

So I need to contact the RFC Editor to correct Erratum 5397, with the 
relevant text in sections 7.8 and 7.9 being changed to something like:

>7.8: "If a NETCONF server receives a <close-session> request while 
>processing a confirmed commit (Section 8.4) for that session, unless 
>the confirmed commit is a persistent confirmed commit, it MUST restore 
>the configuration to its state before the confirmed commit was issued. 
>A persistent confirmed commit MUST survive session termination."
>
>7.9: "If a NETCONF server receives a <kill-session> request while 
>processing a confirmed commit (Section 8.4) for the session to be 
>killed, unless the confirmed commit is a persistent confirmed commit, 
>it MUST restore the configuration to its state before the confirmed 
>commit was issued. A persistent confirmed commit MUST survive session 
>termination."

I also need to contact the RFC Editor to correct Erratum 3821 to change:

>If the session issuing a sequence of one or more confirmed commits is
>terminated for any reason before the confirm timeout expires, the 
>server
>MUST restore the configuration to its state before the sequence of
>confirmed commits was issued, unless the last confirmed commit also
>included a <persist> element.
>
>If the device reboots for any reason before the confirm timeout
>expires, the server MUST restore the configuration to its state
>before the sequence of confirmed commits was issued.

to something like:

>If the session issuing a sequence of one or more confirmed commits is
>terminated for any reason before the confirm timeout expires, the 
>server
>MUST restore the configuration to its state before the sequence of
>confirmed commits was issued, unless the confirmed commit is a
>persistent confirmed commit.
>
>If the device reboots for any reason before the confirm timeout
>expires, unless a persistent confirmed commit is in progress, the
>server MUST restore the configuration to its state before the
>sequence of confirmed commits was issued.
>
>  A persistent confirmed commit MUST survive session termination.
>
Are those errata OK?


On 11/05/2019 16:15:21, "Andy Bierman" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
>On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 7:43 AM Kent Watsen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>It seems that the "for any reason" clause should be qualified modulo 
>>the "persist" element (please file an errata report).  Note also the 
>>last paragraph in Section 8.4.1, which shows RFC 624 straddling 
>>capability versions, hence the wonky text.
>>
>>To answer your question. it is the latter: the only way to abort a 
>>persistent confirmed commit is to let the timer expire, or to use the 
>><cancel-commit> operation.
>>
>>Kent // contributor
>>
>>
>>>On May 8, 2019, at 9:33 AM, Jonathan Hansford 
>>><[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>In RFC 6241:
>>>
>>>Section 8.4.1 states "If the session issuing the confirmed commit is 
>>>terminated for any reason before the confirm timeout expires, the 
>>>server MUST restore the configuration to its state before the 
>>>confirmed commit was issued, unless the confirmed commit also  
>>>included a <persist> element."
>>>
>>>Section 8.4.5.1 states the persist parameter makes "the confirmed 
>>>commit survive a session termination".
>>>
>>>Appendix C states the persist parameter "is used to make a confirmed 
>>>commit persistent. A persistent confirmed commit is not aborted if 
>>>the NETCONF session terminates. The only way to abort a persistent 
>>>confirmed commit is to let the timer expire, or to use the 
>>><cancel-commit> operation."
>
>>>
>>>However:
>>>
>>>Section 7.8, Erratum 5397 states "If a NETCONF server receives a 
>>><close-session> request while processing a confirmed commit (Section 
>>>8.4) for that session, regardless of whether the confirmed commit 
>>>included a <persist> element, it MUST restore the configuration to 
>>>its  state before the confirmed commit was issued."
>>>
>
>
>
>
>I do not agree with this Errata and will never implement it as part of 
>RFC 6241 conformance.
>The entire point of the "persist" mechanism is to tie the confirmed 
>commit to a client, not to a session.
>Cancelling the CC because a client sends a <close-session> (instead of 
>dropping the transport session)
>is obviously counter-productive.  Using <close-session> instead of 
>dropping the session is
>considered the best current practice.
>
>
>
>
>>>Section 7.9, Erratum 5397 states "If a NETCONF server receives a 
>>><kill-session> request while processing a confirmed commit (Section 
>>>8.4) for that session, regardless of whether the confirmed commit 
>>>included a <persist> element, it MUST restore the configuration to 
>>>its  state before the confirmed commit was issued."
>>>
>
>
>This solution (and also 7.8) directly contradict the text cited in 
>8.4.1
>
>
>>>Section 8.4.1 states "If the device reboots for any reason before the 
>>>confirm timeout expires, the server MUST restore the configuration to 
>>>its state before the confirmed commit was issued."
>>>
>>>So:
>>>
>>>Is the use of <close-session> or <kill-session>, or the device 
>>>rebooting, not considered to be the session being "terminated for any 
>>>reason"? Or is it the case that "the only way to abort a persistent 
>>>confirmed commit is to let the timer expire, or to use the 
>>><cancel-commit> operation"?
>>>
>>>Jonathan
>>>
>
>
>Andy
>
>>><https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> 
>>>Virus-free. www.avast.com 
>>><https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>netconf mailing list
>>>[e-mail]
>>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>netconf mailing list
>>[e-mail]
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus