[netconf] Re: draft-ietf-netconf-privcand private candidate | <compare> on private-candidate(s)

["James Cumming (Nokia)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dylan,

Thanks for the feedback.

With regards to the compare section of the document, there is not consensus on the points you raise below.  The section clearly defines the options available to an implementation for using the compare operation with a private candidate.  Each of these options is distinct in it’s own right so this isn’t a question of extensibility (and therefore I do not think the proposed sentence assists in clarifying anything).

Perhaps you could provide some proposed rewording to this section as a whole?  This might help me understand a little more about the parts that are not worded in an optimal way.

Thanks as always Dylan!

James


From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Date: Friday, 6 December 2024 at 05:17
To: James Cumming (Nokia) <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: draft-ietf-netconf-privcand private candidate | <compare> on private-candidate(s)
Hello James

Would you mind reviewing my remarks on the short <compare> paragraph on the latest draft? I often find that a clearer wording avoids lengthy discussions years after a draft is passed.

Cordialement / Regards.

Dylan SADOUN
[phone]
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

De : [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Envoyé : vendredi 18 octobre 2024 17:37
À : James Cumming (Nokia) <[e-mail]>
Cc : [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Objet : [netconf] Re: draft-ietf-netconf-privcand private candidate | <compare> on private-candidate(s)

Hi

I reviewed the last changes, but I still think the wording is hard to understand, and maybe a little incorrect English-wise.

In the current draft, all available combinations are already listed, that is why I did the same. If extensibility is the issue, maybe a sentence like “Additional points of comparison may be added in future documents.” should do?

Cordialement / Regards.

Dylan SADOUN
[phone]
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

De : James Cumming (Nokia) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Envoyé : jeudi 10 octobre 2024 20:10
À : SADOUN Dylan DTOF/DTR <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc : [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Objet : Re: draft-ietf-netconf-privcand private candidate | <compare> on private-candidate(s)

CAUTION : This email originated outside the company. Do not click on any links or open attachments unless you are expecting them from the sender.
ATTENTION : Cet e-mail provient de l'extérieur de l'entreprise. Ne cliquez pas sur les liens ou n'ouvrez pas les pièces jointes à moins de connaitre l'expéditeur.

Thanks Dylan,

Coupled with the other feedback I believe this should be a little clearer in the -05 version.  Would you mind giving it your review?

I am hesitant to list all available combinations as this is slightly non-extensible language.

Thanks

James


From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Thursday, 19 September 2024 at 12:14
To: James Cumming (Nokia) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: RE: draft-ietf-netconf-privcand private candidate | <compare> on private-candidate(s)
Hi James

I misunderstood the intention of the original wording (hence I think this part needs another wording). I re-read the draft and particularly chapter 4.7.2.4.

What about this wording:


A <compare> [RFC9144<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-netconf-privcand-03.html#RFC9144>] operation MAY be performed between the current point of the private candidate against one of:

  1.  The initial creation point of the private candidate's branch
  2.  The last update point of the private candidate's branch
  3.  The running configuration

This is detailed in Section 4.7.2.4.

Cordialement / Regards.

Dylan SADOUN
[phone]
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

De : James Cumming (Nokia) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Envoyé : vendredi 13 septembre 2024 23:43
À : SADOUN Dylan DTSI/DTR <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Objet : Re: draft-ietf-netconf-privcand private candidate | <compare> on private-candidate(s)

CAUTION : This email originated outside the company. Do not click on any links or open attachments unless you are expecting them from the sender.
ATTENTION : Cet e-mail provient de l'extérieur de l'entreprise. Ne cliquez pas sur les liens ou n'ouvrez pas les pièces jointes à moins de connaitre l'expéditeur.

Hi Dylan,

I don’t think the proposed wording is correct.  It implies (at least to me) that you could compare between the last update point of the private candidate and the initial creation point of the private candidate (and not involve the current point of the private candidate at all).  This was not the intention of the original wording.

I’ve added the RFC into the text for the upcoming -05 as you suggest.

Thanks

James


From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Tuesday, 30 July 2024 at 08:01
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: draft-ietf-netconf-privcand private candidate | <compare> on private-candidate(s)

Hello



Quoting 4.5:



"A <compare> operation MAY be performed against:

  1.  The initial creation point of the private candidate's branch
  2.  Against the last update point of the private candidate's branch
  3.  Against the running configuration"



This phrasing seems a bit obscure to me... If these are 3 different points of comparison, wouldn't it be simpler rephrased as:



"A <compare> [RFC9144<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-netconf-privcand-03.html#RFC9144>] operation MAY be performed against two of:

  1.  The initial creation point of the private candidate's branch
  2.  The last update point of the private candidate's branch
  3.  The running configuration"



NB: I added the reference to RFC9144 as well.



Best regards,
Dylan Sadoun
Orange Restricted

Orange Restricted

Orange Restricted

Orange Restricted