[netconf] [Errata Rejected] RFC6241 (5596)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Sat, 19 October 2019 14:31 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
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 2E1DA12002F; Sat, 19 Oct 2019 07:31:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 Rs72nzxB3X-G; Sat, 19 Oct 2019 07:31:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61D1F120013; Sat, 19 Oct 2019 07:31:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 22111B80C7F; Sat, 19 Oct 2019 07:31:24 -0700 (PDT)
To: jonathan@hansfords.net, rob.enns@gmail.com, mbj@tail-f.com, j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de, andy@yumaworks.com
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: ibagdona@gmail.com, iesg@ietf.org, netconf@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20191019143124.22111B80C7F@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2019 07:31:24 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/p0cZx8gJKdCucN-3lPV9Fo4UloQ>
Subject: [netconf] [Errata Rejected] RFC6241 (5596)
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF WG 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: Sat, 19 Oct 2019 14:31:31 -0000
The following errata report has been rejected for RFC6241, "Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF)". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5596 -------------------------------------- Status: Rejected Type: Editorial Reported by: Jonathan Hansford <jonathan@hansfords.net> Date Reported: 2019-01-09 Rejected by: Ignas Bagdonas (IESG) 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. 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. --VERIFIER NOTES-- Rejected based on WG mailing list discussion: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/lNr91W5aK-abxDaqzadftjoE2Pg -------------------------------------- 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
- [netconf] [Errata Rejected] RFC6241 (5596) RFC Errata System