IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netconf] RFC 6241 Ambiguity

Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Wed, 12 June 2019 21:48 UTC

Return-Path: <andy@yumaworks.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 CCCC3120199 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 14:48:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 OF4z3cKszhB1 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 14:48:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x131.google.com (mail-lf1-x131.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2A21120189 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 14:48:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x131.google.com with SMTP id p24so13373850lfo.6 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 14:48:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=4PhgTRQTLzkpsw7x5cVHh3OBbj7/NYnEIdgX5qgdU8E=; b=G5+34lWgD9QwrCxiaASTWNQG6t6c0KisdyxGMasoKtZfw7liknA4qmGXcQC4D7IuGx 6xf9ruKG0SsXoDmaESa96CM+YdYVzdOTsmrS0E1sl0/42DV9Mm7QR9DeWQqDRB9JAylw xSBe2wUQY64DzeOq34plNyfo1QzfLypyabSNXh4Zd0E2woVZVyAFf1ZyloLK+c+6m4a7 GPmGvZZKoHEDmqE8HLxBBoAmw9sQWbIfDu6rXA9rrFHSlhch9wIOzadwmopATtCarQqh HxBagaTNwu7beSIrIXsIm6+28QvYtEQk6lKM6m33fBEKwXeOV8YsVK/k0FT4PEdk152l UExA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=4PhgTRQTLzkpsw7x5cVHh3OBbj7/NYnEIdgX5qgdU8E=; b=qODYD1aOF1N7e5rPY56fEgrr45qDN9hXOedO+Zat5TN7v7aXk1BfBJTTylM7lo8COE iFqnW2BWyejFKPQZXXM+bSSq6AIgoDuXaMIHqU+BURCcfgrJsFfBSzkLHGniVBZxgABP 6daP9Ma5V+NkZEiLfuuM8Txo7KiL6u2xsAgsKYpOmA1fOF0hTirzcDXzSFeeJXMoT1QD W/BpGirKIY+Yqf91NmEBYe0su5fPsH2Szxqj7tBaCk9YswrelOe7Xrmk1vjrtXENbeVL O1ycKW21m57yYUyc3Zv22XiTaiyx5ncsZWJUYEfjkhsR0HKjaurGAxRBIL8PMQyRitNR VAdA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWYuJ732yRovL60DAB39A+1J/HWJlR/AbBD3HTb0mP65a8drbYo DbL4p8F3ZmaWP4RhBR91bQ1LGIZNdB0trXKgdwn8zw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw2Y6EOpdHCAKOk1UcmfL6V34pleb0/VQViJ4YV4yrIuGaLOqDTZQyavNZarkRXliKZS8GWhs6gpk6W6oNLKvc=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:4017:: with SMTP id n23mr46232080lfa.112.1560376081890; Wed, 12 Jun 2019 14:48:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <em35e87021-fa76-4888-a383-8b34e960175f@morpheus> <0100016aa75956af-70018fb1-15f8-4394-8ffd-4f4d5b2d7b3f-000000@email.amazonses.com> <CABCOCHScSp8AEjcgSd7tX-Va45y51CxK-b_hO4nd3SzW9rTUKA@mail.gmail.com> <eme2e51d99-6140-4142-b89f-db5e4c6e2a88@morpheus> <0100016ab7a9af7e-cd7f776e-79e1-42a4-9c5d-d04aed0d8fa1-000000@email.amazonses.com> <emdf557a96-2926-4d87-83f9-2f8216ed652e@morpheus> <76ED75C8-AA1A-4A03-A382-0DE834C914A1@gmail.com> <0100016abd77bfe3-88ae515a-d7f9-41c7-b627-9c51bdf16213-000000@email.amazonses.com> <CABCOCHQ-SWFCzs-FzhLe=-n+j+-AEknTuv-nKJ4etFm0srig5w@mail.gmail.com> <884391D0-3F53-4F3D-BFB0-DD333D09507C@gmail.com> <CABCOCHTLzW+2mkau0KHSbprw0e7PjNFO6SZoPyXUzkKm7gsyow@mail.gmail.com> <00d101d51216$f807d120$e8177360$@hansfords.net> <E954A8E5-B241-4655-BF04-F987EC2870C2@gmail.com> <CABCOCHRKSjEFfRvdQWZEnqMQVQd_hNdrK2r4KByiaTbb8FL3aA@mail.gmail.com> <3B2E5975-26B3-4310-B718-9D8D3F0B0DDA@gmail.com> <CABCOCHTH8Ge6Yk3KdaX-sTmcs_Cx-1U4CEvL8Mt-oLFXUQUCug@mail.gmail.com> <0100016b482fc5f4-caf4b52b-416a-438f-9c47-68df526fb9b7-000000@email.amazonses.com> <CABCOCHQbUCPBu-wY_5sA2TUgsOFNGBtAtrYZ9crFJZV+=xo3Cw@mail.gmail.com> <0100016b4bc86abb-d69f575f-c2e7-4ce9-93a5-047262cbff75-000000@email.amazonses.com> <CABCOCHQct9XP86LsGU3qkUkNKfcoSttdmnUqLLG_JP1wfcLe3w@mail.gmail.com> <0100016b4d55fbaf-7f6ae36b-0a00-4b10-a6c0-22fd0401a5e2-000000@email.amazonses.com>
In-Reply-To: <0100016b4d55fbaf-7f6ae36b-0a00-4b10-a6c0-22fd0401a5e2-000000@email.amazonses.com>
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 14:47:50 -0700
Message-ID: <CABCOCHQJ96hXxD19E_KQJ2quHxiUwSivn-Ei0sGWoYDFwM6Qxw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>
Cc: "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>, Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000013da52058b275ec2"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/x0zYDUMvBSPfH-SdCl07y6yY1yw>
Subject: Re: [netconf] RFC 6241 Ambiguity
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: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 21:48:06 -0000

Hi,

This is the new text in question:
It appears your intent is (c) since there is no mention at all what happens
if
<persist> was included.  The text just says what does not happen in this
case.


>>    If the device reboots for any reason before the confirm timeout
>>    expires, the server MUST restore the configuration to its state
>>    before the confirmed commit was issued, unless the confirmed commit
>>    also included a <persist> element.
>>
>

How about adding at the end:

OLD:

element.

NEW:

element, in which case the server MAY continue the confirmed commit
procedure.


Andy



On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 1:16 PM Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net> wrote:

>
> Hi Andy,
>
> I object to changing RFC 6241 with an Errata if it attempts to enforce
> protocol behavior
> that the original RFC does not actually specify.  (c) is correct for an
> Errata because the original RFC
> is under-specified.  Or perhaps: (d) 'persist' MAY span reboots
>
>
> It sounds like we're in agreement.  Are you objecting to something I wrote
> in particular?
>
> Kent // contributor
>
>
>

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status