Re: few comments on the prot-06 draft

[Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com>]

Phil Shafer wrote:

> Andy Bierman writes:
>  
>
> > I strongly agree with the proposal to change the units of the 
> > confirm-timeout
> > parameter from minutes to seconds.  There are already use cases where
> > the minimum rollback trigger of one minute is too slow.
> >    
>
> Can you share some of your use cases?  IMHO declaring failure and
> triggering recovery procedures with such a fine timer is likely to
> cause as many issue as it solves.
>  
IMO, in environments with very reliable fast connectivity (<1s RTT), on 
large devices in which
many incremental changes to the config are common (e.g., circuit 
provisioning), it is undesirable
to wait a whole minute to recover from a config mistake that disrupts or 
crashes the device,
especially since we only have global locking.

However, if there isn't any consensus to change the units then let's 
leave it alone and
fix it in the future if needed.

> Thanks,
> Phil
>  
Andy

> --
> to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
> the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
> archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>
>
>
>  


--
to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>