[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: consecutive locks on the same session
John Ng (jng) wrote:
If we decide it is an error, should the session terminate?
Or continue and just reply with the error?
We already decided a long time ago it is an error.
The section cited below explains what to do if
a lock is in use.
Why would we want to terminate the session?
That's a bit severe I think. It's just an <rpc> failing.
However, in reading prot-06 again, the text has a bug.
It's hard to spot because of the hyphenated word at
the end of the line (ID-nit!)
-----------------------------------
section 7.5, heading 'Negative Response', para 2, sentence 1:
OLD:
If the lock is already held, the <error-tag> will be in-use and ...
NEW:
If the lock is already held, the <error-tag> will be 'lock-denied' and ...
----------------------------------
Note that 'lock-denied' error code exists because
the 'session-id' of the lock holder needs to be returned.
The errors 'in-use' and 'resource-denied' are intended
for generic cases or internal constructs not exposed to users.
--jng
Andy
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org
[mailto:owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Steven Berl (sberl)
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 12:00 PM
To: James Balestriere (jbalestr); netconf@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: consecutive locks on the same session
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/>
--
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/>