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

[Jonathan Hansford <[e-mail]>]

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
>