RE: kill-session: editorial mistake

["McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>]

Hi,

I agree with Lei Zhang - the spec is _very_ deficient
in stating this subtle behavior.

Thanks to Andy for clarifying the (somewhat) surprising
intended behavior - but expecting implementors to get
that much implied context out of these paragraphs in
the spec is inherently unsafe for interoperability.

Cheers,
- Ira

Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI  49839
phone: +1-906-494-2434
email: imcdonald@sharplabs.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org]On
> Behalf Of Lei Zhang
> Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 12:01 PM
> To: Andy Bierman
> Cc: netconf@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: kill-session: editorial mistake
> 
> 
> Andy Bierman wrote:
> 
> > Sec. 7.9 is referring to changes that have been commited 
> from <candidate>
> > to <running>.  If the <kill-session> occurs after the first 
> <commit> 
> > but before
> > the second <commit>, then the agent treats the 
> <kill-session> the same
> > as a dropped session, and reverts the <running> config.
> 
> ok that sounds reasonable. The text sure can use some rewrite 
> to clarify 
> things up.
> 
> Thanks,
> Lei
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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/>