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

Jonathan Hansford <> Mon, 09 December 2013 21:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AF741AE08B for <>; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 13:28:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F5vMbDaLswcP for <>; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 13:28:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E52A91AE586 for <>; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 13:28:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) by avasout04 with smtp id zZTw1m00205w0Nk01ZTxJy; Mon, 09 Dec 2013 21:27:58 +0000
X-CM-Score: 0.00
X-CNFS-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=C6LQl2/+ c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=ay7+waBXjX2gYBYtdgtTjg==:117 a=ay7+waBXjX2gYBYtdgtTjg==:17 a=0Bzu9jTXAAAA:8 a=crK2bTrhSLoA:10 a=OZAIM3IXDPUA:10 a=0B8HqoTn75oA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=6bkCdLdQAAAA:8 a=U1ZSPVn_UXUA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=BqEg4_3jAAAA:8 a=jPBYgwADTMABCcHdWQUA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=PgLAuiSjgOYA:10 a=mhd2NDuUijAA:10
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 21:27:56 +0000
From: Jonathan Hansford <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <>,,,,,,,
References: <> <> <20131209210752.GA70828@elstar.local>
In-Reply-To: <20131209210752.GA70828@elstar.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6241 (3821)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 21:28:08 -0000


This was my first submission of errata and they came out of my September 
email and the subsequent thread about confirmed commits 
Consequently there has already been some discussion around the issue. 
The points I was seeking to clarify related to the definition of the 
term "Confirmed commit" (something that makes sense to those who have 
had exposure to JUNOS but appeared counter-intuitive to me in that a 
confirmed commit is one that hasn't yet been confirmed) and the fact 
that it is possible to have a sequence of confirmed commits prior to the 
confirming commit. I'm happy to add that text to the errata.


On 09/12/2013 21:07, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 09:34:58PM +0100, Bert Wijnen (IETF) wrote:
>> We have a set of 3 new errata reported to RFC6241.
>> See:
>> We would like to hear from the authors/editors what their
>> opinion is on the reported errata.
>> It is probably best to report your views to the netconf mailing list.
>> but if you rather disuss it here first, that is OK too. We probably
>> have to repeat the discussion on the mlist later if we do, so best to
>> do it on the mailing list. It will hopefully trigger views from others aswell.
> I think it would help a lot if there would be a motivation or some
> sort of an explanation in addition to the OLD NEW text. As it is, I
> have to guess what the submitter wants to achieve with these errata.
> Since these are technical errata, it should be possible to describe
> the problem/bug that is being fixed. It seems that the submitter is
> trying to address multiple issues in those changes. Anyway, an
> explanation would have been nice to have.
> /js