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

joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Tue, 10 December 2013 15:55 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.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 945C41AE052 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 07:55:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 IZHqziU_EZra for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 07:55:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 331481ADFA4 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 07:55:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mb-aye.local (c-50-174-18-221.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [50.174.18.221]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id rBAFtZnr090975 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 10 Dec 2013 15:55:36 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
Message-ID: <52A73971.4020900@bogus.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 07:55:29 -0800
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:26.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/26.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jonathan Hansford <Jonathan@hansfords.net>, Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
References: <20131206100737.B33EB7FC383@rfc-editor.org> <52A62972.4010001@bwijnen.net> <20131210.132819.2303764306420511964.mbj@tail-f.com> <5b0a33c781e844d8ea6eeed786f175a1@imap.plus.net>
In-Reply-To: <5b0a33c781e844d8ea6eeed786f175a1@imap.plus.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ULjDglASIiVpNrQ1Qo2ghgV81lPuVQqxD"
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (nagasaki.bogus.com [147.28.0.81]); Tue, 10 Dec 2013 15:55:36 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: rob.enns@gmail.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 15:55:54 -0000

On 12/10/13, 4:50 AM, Jonathan Hansford wrote:
>  
> 
> 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. 

Imho this is not an appropriate use of the errata system.

if there is something wrong (with 6241) e.g. the 3822 errata is
necessary for correct implementation that's one thing, if the are
clarifying we should not be handling them in this fashion.

> 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
>