Re: [Netconf] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6241 (5596)

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Wed, 09 January 2019 12:13 UTC

Return-Path: <mbj@tail-f.com>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E179128766 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 04:13:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 C8p55ZRB7Gwi for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 04:13:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02E77127133 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 04:13:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [173.38.220.45]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 720551AE0383; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 13:13:45 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2019 13:13:45 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <20190109.131345.733955603346655699.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Cc: rob.enns@gmail.com, j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de, andy@yumaworks.com, ibagdona@gmail.com, warren@kumari.net, kwatsen@juniper.net, mjethanandani@gmail.com, jonathan@hansfords.net, netconf@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <20190109090532.F28AAB82360@rfc-editor.org>
References: <20190109090532.F28AAB82360@rfc-editor.org>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 24.5 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/lNr91W5aK-abxDaqzadftjoE2Pg>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6241 (5596)
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 09 Jan 2019 12:13:49 -0000

Hi,


RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>; wrote:
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6241,
> "Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)".
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5596
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Editorial
> Reported by: Jonathan Hansford <jonathan@hansfords.net>;
> 
> Section: 7.5
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
>       The duration of the lock is defined as beginning when the lock is
>       acquired and lasting until either the lock is released or the
>       NETCONF session closes.  The session closure can be explicitly
>       performed by the client, or implicitly performed by the server
>       based on criteria such as failure of the underlying transport,
>       simple inactivity timeout, or detection of abusive behavior on the
>       part of the client.  These criteria are dependent on the
>       implementation and the underlying transport.
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
>       The duration of the lock is defined as beginning when the lock is
>       acquired and lasting until either the lock is released or the
>       NETCONF session closes.  The session closure can be explicitly
>       performed by the client, or implicitly performed by the server
>       based on criteria such as failure of the underlying transport,
>       simple inactivity timeout, or detection of abusive behavior on the
>       part of the client.  These criteria are dependent on the
>       implementation and the underlying transport. Note that a lock
>       associated with a persistent confirmed commit will be released if
>       the NETCONF session closes and, if required, a new lock will have
>       to be acquired.

The errata adds the last sentence.  I don't think that this sentence
is necessary; there is no text that indicates that a lock will somehow
be kept if the session terminates - in fact it is clear from section
7.5 what happens:

      A lock will be released by the system if the session holding the
      lock is terminated for any reason.

Also, note that the proposed text is not quite correct; a lock is not
associated with a persistent confirmed commit, but with a session.

(There might be other issues with the text around lock and persist, as
indicated in your email to the list though, but I think that this
specific errata is not needed.)


/martin




> 
> Notes
> -----
> A persistent confirmed commit can survive a session termination, however any lock on that same session cannot. If a new session is established between the client and server, the client will need to acquire new locks if it wishes to protect the ongoing persistent confirmed commit.
> 
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party  
> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC6241 (draft-ietf-netconf-4741bis-10)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)
> Publication Date    : June 2011
> Author(s)           : R. Enns, Ed., M. Bjorklund, Ed., J. Schoenwaelder, Ed., A. Bierman, Ed.
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : Network Configuration
> Area                : Operations and Management
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG
>