IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Jonathan Hansford <Jonathan@hansfords.net> Tue, 10 December 2013 16:05 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 959261AE059 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 08:05:21 -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 qdkeh7f6RY1z for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 08:05:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from avasout07.plus.net (avasout07.plus.net [84.93.230.235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5CD61AE0F6 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 08:05:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from webmail.plus.net ([84.93.228.66]) by avasout07 with smtp id zs5B1m0091SbfYc01s5BY8; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 16:05:12 +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=yNDW1slZx-oJOkTWoPcA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=mhd2NDuUijAA:10 a=XqebBV1NYWwA:10 a=jFPUFpGHtmAA:10 a=iY4jf9MO24OleQkMi9MA:9 a=-nU-te13jhiyxndQ: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 16:05:11 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_b51a45fecf8af5e171981c582bcd25a0"
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 16:05:11 +0000
From: Jonathan Hansford <Jonathan@hansfords.net>
To: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABCOCHQfbsz8AHY0SRs+TOcmARenvTQ2Nn_JtAkynexxh-wozw@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>
Message-ID: <cb13626ae792344d299ac437a00c906b@imap.plus.net>
X-Sender: Jonathan@hansfords.net
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.7.4
X-Originating-IP: [212.159.134.100]
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 13:11:08 -0800
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 16:05:21 -0000

 

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. 
Jonathan 

> Andy 
> 
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 6:36
AM, Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com [4]> wrote:
> 
>> [fixing andy's
address]
>> 
>> "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <bertietf@bwijnen.net [1]>
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 [2]> 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
[3]
>> > >>
>> > >> 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:bertietf@bwijnen.net
[2] mailto:bertietf@bwijnen.net
[3]
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6241&amp;rec_status=15&amp;presentation=table
[4]
mailto:mbj@tail-f.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email