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

Jonathan Hansford <Jonathan@hansfords.net> Tue, 10 December 2013 12:50 UTC

Return-Path: <jonathan@hansfords.net>
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 B76221AE058 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 04:50:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 QS1qY-N95lRy for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 04:50:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from avasout07.plus.net (avasout07.plus.net [84.93.230.235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31EEC1AE043 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 04:50:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from webmail.plus.net ([84.93.228.66]) by avasout07 with smtp id zoqR1m0011SbfYc01oqRDg; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 12:50:25 +0000
X-CM-Score: 0.00
X-CNFS-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=Z9fVQhhA c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=C5+YawzV8SR07mwocaP9vA==:117 a=MEK23cO9Z3nTrtfM1ievvA==:17 a=0Bzu9jTXAAAA:8 a=dYCPD3cKDi0A:10 a=OZAIM3IXDPUA:10 a=0B8HqoTn75oA:10 a=lxldWUwtbAkA:10 a=6bkCdLdQAAAA:8 a=f0uUZFObAAAA:8 a=U1ZSPVn_UXUA:10 a=SUE4xeBjAAAA:8 a=BqEg4_3jAAAA:8 a=Ad2uro4BRyVbChx5SPAA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=mhd2NDuUijAA:10 a=jFPUFpGHtmAA:10 a=0N9LTMhsuN-R5-XuJrUA:9 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10
X-AUTH: hansfords+us:2500
Received: from host-212-159-134-100.static.as13285.net ([212.159.134.100]) by webmail.plus.net with HTTP (HTTP/1.1 POST); Tue, 10 Dec 2013 12:50:25 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_8b12850d408a397ed3350d8fe54f8b15"
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 12:50:25 +0000
From: Jonathan Hansford <Jonathan@hansfords.net>
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <20131210.132819.2303764306420511964.mbj@tail-f.com>
References: <20131206100737.B33EB7FC383@rfc-editor.org> <52A62972.4010001@bwijnen.net> <20131210.132819.2303764306420511964.mbj@tail-f.com>
Message-ID: <5b0a33c781e844d8ea6eeed786f175a1@imap.plus.net>
X-Sender: Jonathan@hansfords.net
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.7.4
X-Originating-IP: [212.159.134.100]
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 04:56:21 -0800
Cc: rob.enns@gmail.com, joelja@bogus.com, netconf@ietf.org, andy.bierman@brocade.com
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 12:50:34 -0000

 

But, short of an RFC6241-bis (which I can't see occurring any time
soon), how else can the clarification be made available to readers of
the RFC? They might find the information if they search the Netconf
Discussion Archive, but that isn't particularly easy nor guaranteed to
provide the information needed (even assuming they realise there is a
need for clarification). For people who have been involved in all the
discussions on NETCONF since RFC 3535 much of this is presumably
obvious, but for those of us seeking to understand NETCONF based
primarily on a reading of the RFCs (in the absence of any book written
on the subject), it would be really useful if any clarifications that
arise through the Netconf Discussion Archive could be made more easily
available, maybe as annotations rather than errata. 

On 2013-12-10
12:28, 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
[1] 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
 

Links:
------
[1]
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6241&amp;rec_status=15&amp;presentation=table