Not so. The draft as currently expressed is neutral on the entire subject, and as there are implementations that do not lock anything, there is as of yet no agreement on how to express locking, due in part to a lack of standard schema, we would be left with one big mondo lock. Want that?As the draft is currently expressed, locking is required to avoid deleting someone else's "add interface" operation while you do a "delete interface" operation on the same ospf area.
That's true in as far as you say, but since there is no standard schema in the draft -- BY DESIGN -- your comment is a non-sequitor.You cannot tell from reading an transaction expressed per your draft whether the purpose of the operation is to create an entire area configuration, complete with fully configured interface instances, or simply to delete a single interface instance. Very odd.