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

Jonathan Hansford <jonathan@hansfords.net> Mon, 09 December 2013 21:28 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 6AF741AE08B for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 13:28:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F5vMbDaLswcP for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 13:28:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from avasout04.plus.net (avasout04.plus.net [212.159.14.19]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E52A91AE586 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 13:28:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([84.92.149.4]) 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: <52A635DC.1040708@hansfords.net>
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 21:27:56 +0000
From: Jonathan Hansford <jonathan@hansfords.net>
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)" <bertietf@bwijnen.net>, rob.enns@gmail.com, mbj@tail-f.com, andy.bierman@brocade.com, bclaise@cisco.com, joelja@bogus.com, mehmet.ersue@nsn.com, netconf@ietf.org
References: <20131206100737.B33EB7FC383@rfc-editor.org> <52A62972.4010001@bwijnen.net> <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-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: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 21:28:08 -0000

Apologies,

This was my first submission of errata and they came out of my September 
email and the subsequent thread about confirmed commits 
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netconf/current/msg08314.html). 
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.

Jonathan

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: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6241&rec_status=15&presentation=table
>>
>> 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
>