Re: kill-session: editorial mistake

[Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com>]

McDonald, Ira wrote:

> 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.
>  

Agreed that this detail is fairly well buried.

At first, I thought this was a bug, but then I remembered we
talked about this in the past (forget when).  Phil explained
to me that this is a feature, not a bug.

I always learned that you try to keep the Astonishment Factor as low
as possible.  This is certainly not a side effect of <unlock> that one
would reasonably expect to find.  But if you use locks correctly,
nothing will be in the <candidate> to discard.

> Cheers,
> - Ira
>  

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/>