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

Jonathan Hansford <Jonathan@hansfords.net> Tue, 10 December 2013 16:26 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 7BDA41AE03D for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 08:26:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 px5j5fSp5zZV for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 08:26:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from avasout07.plus.net (avasout07.plus.net [84.93.230.235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67C3D1AD8F0 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 08:26:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from webmail.plus.net ([84.93.228.66]) by avasout07 with smtp id zsSj1m0071SbfYc01sSjd6; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 16:26:43 +0000
X-CM-Score: 0.00
X-CNFS-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=Z9fVQhhA c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=C5+YawzV8SR07mwocaP9vA==:117 a=MEK23cO9Z3nTrtfM1ievvA==:17 a=0Bzu9jTXAAAA:8 a=dYCPD3cKDi0A:10 a=OZAIM3IXDPUA:10 a=0B8HqoTn75oA:10 a=lxldWUwtbAkA:10 a=6bkCdLdQAAAA:8 a=f0uUZFObAAAA:8 a=U1ZSPVn_UXUA:10 a=u07AKapRAAAA:8 a=SUE4xeBjAAAA:8 a=BqEg4_3jAAAA:8 a=sr8DB3k7OHan1JxBuMEA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=mhd2NDuUijAA:10 a=1rgnPY4EEFsA:10 a=XqebBV1NYWwA:10 a=jFPUFpGHtmAA:10 a=KnnnJg_a4gd-VWB_GYIA:9 a=zVlx6iei4MeMW_MR:21 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10
X-AUTH: hansfords+us:2500
Received: from host-212-159-134-100.static.as13285.net ([212.159.134.100]) by webmail.plus.net with HTTP (HTTP/1.1 POST); Tue, 10 Dec 2013 16:26:43 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_a21918c51cd62344439071e67050bff2"
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 16:26:43 +0000
From: Jonathan Hansford <Jonathan@hansfords.net>
To: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABCOCHS4BSR=46xcnWx02DQtXm6rtbJ69vHXwO9gReOPrist-g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <52A62972.4010001@bwijnen.net> <20131210.132819.2303764306420511964.mbj@tail-f.com> <52A7244A.4090006@bwijnen.net> <20131210.153651.1182516105923318005.mbj@tail-f.com> <CABCOCHQfbsz8AHY0SRs+TOcmARenvTQ2Nn_JtAkynexxh-wozw@mail.gmail.com> <cb13626ae792344d299ac437a00c906b@imap.plus.net> <CABCOCHS4BSR=46xcnWx02DQtXm6rtbJ69vHXwO9gReOPrist-g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7de2779d935aae627d3c3b030466b1dc@imap.plus.net>
X-Sender: Jonathan@hansfords.net
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.7.4
X-Originating-IP: [212.159.134.100]
Cc: rob.enns@gmail.com, joelja@bogus.com, Netconf <netconf@ietf.org>
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: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 16:26:52 -0000

 

On 2013-12-10 16:15, Andy Bierman wrote: 

> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at
8:05 AM, Jonathan Hansford <Jonathan@hansfords.net [1]> wrote:
> 
>> On
2013-12-10 15:59, Andy Bierman wrote: 
>> 
>>> Hi, 
>>> I don't think
these 3 reports are corrections. 
>>> They are editorial changes to the
text. 
>>> I don't agree that the new terminology added "sequence of
confirmed commits" 
>>> is correct. There is just 1
netconf-confirmed-commit notification for start & complete 
>>> sent out
no matter how how many times the procedure is extended. 
>>> 
>>> If the
procedure ends with a cancel or timeout, there is only 1 original commit

>>> that is restored. It is incorrect to think of this procedure as a
series of 
>>> confirmed commits. A commit that extends the procedure is
not treated 
>>> the same as the commit that starts the procedure.
>>

>> Are you saying that the initial commit of the sequence (the
confirmed commit?) is restored should the procedure be cancelled or
timeout? Surely the commit that is restored is the one that preceded the
confirmed commit.
> 
> The confirmed commit is the first <commit> that
includes a <confirmed> parameter. 
> The 2nd - Nth <commit> are
extending the first commit operation. The server is still 
> obligated
to revert the running config for the first commit (if it is canceled or
timed out). 
> This obligation is not removed because the commit is
extended. It is only removed 
> if a confirming commit is
received.

Andy, 
I'm not sure whether we agreeing or not. Section 8.4.1
of RFC6241 (2nd paragraph) talks about 'a follow-up confirmed <commit>
operation'. Are you saying that that second 'confirmed <commit>' (i.e. a
<commit> with the <confirmed> parameter) is not a "confirmed commit"?
And when you say 'the server is obligated to revert the running config
for the first commit' do you mean revert to the state prior to that
first confirmed <commit>? 
Jonathan 

>> Jonathan
> 
> Andy 
> 
>>> Andy

>>> 
>>> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 6:36 AM, Martin Bjorklund
<mbj@tail-f.com [5]> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> [fixing andy's address]
>>>> 
>>>>
"Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <bertietf@bwijnen.net [2]> wrote:
>>>> > Martin,
did you mean to make this statement for all 3 reported errata,
>>>> > or
just for 3821?
>>>> 
>>>> All three.
>>>> 
>>>> Editorial errata is fine
with me.
>>>> 
>>>> /martin
>>>> 
>>>> >
>>>> > If anyone disagrees with
Martin's assessment, pls speak up NOW.
>>>> >
>>>> > Thanks,
>>>> >
Bert
>>>> >
>>>> > On 12/10/13 1:28 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>>>> > >
"Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <bertietf@bwijnen.net [3]> 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
[4]
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> We would like to hear from the authors/editors
what their
>>>> > >> opinion is on the reported errata.
>>>> > >
>>>> >
> I think the proposed text is fine, however I do not know if it
>>>> >
> qualifies as an errata. IMO it clarifies the description of
>>>> > >
confirmed-commit, but the current text is not wrong.
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>
>>>> > > /martin
>>>> > >
>>>> > >
>>>> >
 

Links:
------
[1]
mailto:Jonathan@hansfords.net
[2] mailto:bertietf@bwijnen.net
[3]
mailto:bertietf@bwijnen.net
[4]
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6241&amp;rec_status=15&amp;presentation=table
[5]
mailto:mbj@tail-f.com