Here is what I wrote on Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:49:00 +0200: : It is possible that people will find more bugs while this I-D sits in : the RFC editor queue. My idea is to treat them pretty much in the way : we treat errata of published RFCs (they need to be clearly written up, : discussed on the list, there needs to be agreement on the bug and the : proposed fix). If we get pre-publication errata with consensus, I hope : we can address them during the editing/auth48 stage so we do not have : to post an RFC with already known defects. Does this make sense to : you?
As document shepherd, I believe there is no strong agreement on the problem and there is no concrete proposal with strong consensus for a modification of the document (which is in AUTH48). In fact, there has been no defect description and proposed bug fix at all on the NETMOD mailing list. /js On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 07:04:10PM -0700, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote: > Moving the thread from netconf to netmod. > > Will the authors pull 6020bis back into the WG to reach the rough consensus? > > > On Aug 17, 2016, at 2:13 AM, Martin Bjorklund <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I have read this long ML thread twice now, and I agree with Andy that: > > > > 1) We should not / cannot make design changes in an errata or late in > > AUTH48; in order to do this we need to pull the document back to > > the WG and reach (rough) consensus on the behavior (note btw that > > this thread is currently in NETCONF, it really should be NETMOD). > > > > 2) Since servers MAY delete NP-containers in some cases, clients can > > easily handle NP-containers by using "merge" on them. > > > > > > I also agree with Jason that ideally the server should never fail on > > any kind of operation on an NP-container, regardless of current state > > and requested operation. (But again, this is not a simple > > clarification of the current text.) > > > > > > And to answer the original question, I think the server that first got > > a request to create the empty NP-containers and then a request w/ > > operation "none" is not correct when it fails with a "data-missing" > > error. There is no text in 6241 or 6020 that supports this behavior. > > > > > > /martin > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Netconf mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf > > Mahesh Jethanandani > [email protected] > > > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
