Re: [netconf] RFC 6241 Ambiguity

Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Sat, 11 May 2019 15:15 UTC

Return-Path: <andy@yumaworks.com>
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 7D33412002E for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 May 2019 08:15:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.89
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.89 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_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 BEftoZr64crb for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 May 2019 08:15:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x135.google.com (mail-lf1-x135.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::135]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CDA1712001E for <netconf@ietf.org>; Sat, 11 May 2019 08:15:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x135.google.com with SMTP id n22so6111472lfe.12 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Sat, 11 May 2019 08:15:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ucSKDdRwufveGrPkXgNjQle+RGeNDbZfXX6KeIoWisA=; b=ZPP+Kp9IYU06bUNuGY5Kf8Ysnh8Cj9czo7xpPBLNE/F3DtPs6OBBXVvqn+VWHkOXKR hpbrtIU4TTC3oDzfEfs5vmFwIYHofqF0kyA4JyKdLJwx5FakJoH8Bjc0LvgxgjNaBhrf 0U9uOVRfutKeLnKoNow1GDho95+wJ6unf0HlEW2xew+EA2WSwZ4bBQbfbcDIlxgc4FhZ thP9snelwbTpZKIHHAl0j2IwTUH99aeRuQG80JPznHzKx9d3jk+OmmYNE/Vg5CoSjRBN mdeX8uxN7oaewXiUa9YwFrIwiyS81klk1VxW/r3VQK+4QAMzqEhTOErlNiV4U2hMYBib O8OA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ucSKDdRwufveGrPkXgNjQle+RGeNDbZfXX6KeIoWisA=; b=uXFvJF4nLVLk/fhPwyZm/f5coREIU9tMGUs2FxBquj2varlnzmmHgpNIKuktkQG1zI NAtuswIom7BIFE61yrZZda+WQSF3VyxTVG7IWpZydoQ1ERZSug1DysvXqpBvZR/Jwu2I 9RK1dUG/xjz8LpF1OsvtxM7WxkEx3Q475FaGE+QXf6SCr5tJ/RwTmHFgrrg7zxXSfW3V 8kvAtLBeBlu6PEVUpqgw+XxQb+/6hKwsFc5k2vi380b73RVJTVsIX6JDy/nLz8siWdFP OWuOD7yG2Qai06MVJ6za9c01UjMC90RLI4Y8k1+rZnOqAm5qT+rYXDDrH8RxfDJZ3U+B oR4w==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVESrzdCj3jt9o/zyDDBBY08C3aCwxF8ESRzy33F9jRLLnxVG2F ePf2Axy80suSunA1z9tiLe/HaO1zFWDy/DSZJIu10w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw6s0O71p8mKs7/uMTF3s7AYdv+u9dUX849eoMTKqOYhkmTGNKinZgSs1gwKhDQpiCfD+sP6kH3tfYohqjeLHs=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:5621:: with SMTP id b1mr9387664lff.27.1557587732880; Sat, 11 May 2019 08:15:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <em35e87021-fa76-4888-a383-8b34e960175f@morpheus> <0100016aa75956af-70018fb1-15f8-4394-8ffd-4f4d5b2d7b3f-000000@email.amazonses.com>
In-Reply-To: <0100016aa75956af-70018fb1-15f8-4394-8ffd-4f4d5b2d7b3f-000000@email.amazonses.com>
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Date: Sat, 11 May 2019 08:15:21 -0700
Message-ID: <CABCOCHScSp8AEjcgSd7tX-Va45y51CxK-b_hO4nd3SzW9rTUKA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kent Watsen <kent@watsen.net>
Cc: Jonathan Hansford <jonathan@hansfords.net>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008680aa05889e27be"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/i5u5I7n7jdgq3UzzLlvBgRUEwfc>
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: Sat, 11 May 2019 15:15:39 -0000

On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 7:43 AM Kent Watsen <kent@watsen.net>; 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 <jonathan@hansfords.net>;
> 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
> netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netconf mailing list
> netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>