RE: consecutive locks on the same session

["Steven Berl \(sberl\)" <sberl@cisco.com>]

Didn't see any other replies to this, so I will try.

I don't think the current draft specifies this behavior. I propose that
an attempt to lock an already locked configuration should generate an
error just as if the lock were held by another session. The error
message contains the session-id of the session holding the lock. The
manager software can compare this session-id with its current session-id
(which it received in the hello) and know that the lock is held by
itself.

Other opinions?

-steve 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of James 
> Balestriere (jbalestr)
> Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 3:32 PM
> To: netconf@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: consecutive locks on the same session
> 
>  
>  if a session does a lock and it gets the lock we send ok.
>  if it does a lock again whilst it still has the lock, does 
> it  get an error or ok ?
>  
>  I am suspecting we send ok but it is not very clear from the spec.
>  
>  James.
>  
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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/>