Re: [netconf] RFC 6241 Ambiguity

Kent Watsen <> Wed, 15 May 2019 21:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D0E01200A2 for <>; Wed, 15 May 2019 14:48:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 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] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ci-bbABdkhx3 for <>; Wed, 15 May 2019 14:48:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8030B120021 for <>; Wed, 15 May 2019 14:48:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple; s=6gbrjpgwjskckoa6a5zn6fwqkn67xbtw;; t=1557956903; h=From:Message-Id:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References:Feedback-ID; bh=bm9elLOBC7YTDYeU3O/EomLPbF4v8Ir0KUvkXPTrL2w=; b=nSNTDss1uJ3r2tcog4aRFa4lPZwhKX9ocGdlfflajsDjazikT44kFD9ZjKvsTQDm ig/6MwyO6NEuCcKzMUYGh44JQfpcS5hoiuRBQFs/xVpdtiRxQfxdK9Bu84Ld94rXlKo l979d5nIkY4U2nJtSdHUOp56JVPsN9svUACtiZhc=
From: Kent Watsen <>
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_17690598-21AE-4643-A2A9-FA6EE5FA2172"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 21:48:22 +0000
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Jonathan Hansford <>, "" <>
To: Mahesh Jethanandani <>
References: <em35e87021-fa76-4888-a383-8b34e960175f@morpheus> <> <> <eme2e51d99-6140-4142-b89f-db5e4c6e2a88@morpheus> <> <emdf557a96-2926-4d87-83f9-2f8216ed652e@morpheus> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
X-SES-Outgoing: 2019.05.15-
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netconf] RFC 6241 Ambiguity
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF WG list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 21:48:27 -0000

>> I don't think Erratum 5397 should be deleted. Though the original section 7.8 makes no mention of confirmed commits, section 7.9 does, but does not differentiate between a vanilla confirmed commit and a persistent confirmed commit. Since a persistent confirmed commit is still a type of confirmed commit, without clarification the second paragraph of the description would seem to apply. 
> I would agree.

It's a minor point, but I could argue, as I wrote before, that such clarifications in 7.x are unnecessary because 8.4 provides overrides.   I prefer less text because it's easier to get right (wit this is at least the 3rd time Jonathan is at this now).  However "unnecessary" doesn't mean "wrong" and since we've already stepped in it, getting the 7.x errata right might be easier than getting 8.4 right.

>> With the diff, should that be against the original text or the original erratum?
> The diff is building on top of the original erratum. I would think a diff w.r.t. to the original erratum would make sense.

It depends, are you correcting the earlier errata or filing a new one?   Regardless, I expressed a diff for what I think the text should be (which you didn't comment on); how that is translated is up to you.

Kent // contributor