Re: [netmod] [Netconf] What should a server response be? - depending on NP-containers

Here is what I wrote on Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:49:00 +0200:

: It is possible that people will find more bugs while this I-D sits in
: the RFC editor queue. My idea is to treat them pretty much in the way
: we treat errata of published RFCs (they need to be clearly written up,
: discussed on the list, there needs to be agreement on the bug and the
: proposed fix). If we get pre-publication errata with consensus, I hope
: we can address them during the editing/auth48 stage so we do not have
: to post an RFC with already known defects. Does this make sense to
: you?

As document shepherd, I believe there is no strong agreement on the
problem and there is no concrete proposal with strong consensus for a
modification of the document (which is in AUTH48). In fact, there has
been no defect description and proposed bug fix at all on the NETMOD
mailing list.

/js

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 07:04:10PM -0700, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote:
> Moving the thread from netconf to netmod.
> 
> Will the authors pull 6020bis back into the WG to reach the rough consensus?
> 
> > On Aug 17, 2016, at 2:13 AM, Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I have read this long ML thread twice now, and I agree with Andy that:
> > 
> > 1)  We should not / cannot make design changes in an errata or late in
> >    AUTH48; in order to do this we need to pull the document back to
> >    the WG and reach (rough) consensus on the behavior (note btw that
> >    this thread is currently in NETCONF, it really should be NETMOD).
> > 
> > 2)  Since servers MAY delete NP-containers in some cases, clients can
> >    easily handle NP-containers by using "merge" on them.
> > 
> > 
> > I also agree with Jason that ideally the server should never fail on
> > any kind of operation on an NP-container, regardless of current state
> > and requested operation.  (But again, this is not a simple
> > clarification of the current text.)
> > 
> > 
> > And to answer the original question, I think the server that first got
> > a request to create the empty NP-containers and then a request w/
> > operation "none" is not correct when it fails with a "data-missing"
> > error.  There is no text in 6241 or 6020 that supports this behavior.
> > 
> > 
> > /martin
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Netconf mailing list
> > Netconf@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
> 
> Mahesh Jethanandani
> mjethanandani@gmail.com
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>