Re: [netconf] RFC 6241 Ambiguity

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

On 12/06/2019 14:02:34, "Kent Watsen" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>>>   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.
If (a) is not possible, how can it be an implementation decision whether 
'persist' spans reboots? If (a) is not possible, only (b) is left and 
IoT devices that must reboot for each commit are excluded.
>
>
>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

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