Subject: [Netconf] AD review for draft-ietf-netconf-partial-lock-08.txt

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:33:51 +0200

This document is ready to be sent to IETF Last Call, and I will send it
immediately after sending this message. Please consider the comments
below together with the other IETF Last Call comments.

1. IPR and Copyright issues

Running idnits results in the following warning: 

== The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but was
     first submitted before 10 November 2008.  Should you add the
disclaimer?
     (See the Legal Provisions document at
     http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.). 

     trust-12-feb-2009 Section 6.c.iii text:
     "This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
      Contributions published or made publicly available before November
      10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
      material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
      modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.

      Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s)
      controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not
      be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative
      works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process,
      except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it
      into languages other than English."

Also, the schema in Appendix A will need to include the full text of the
BSD license for code or a reference to it. This issue is still debated
with the Trust, so no action by now on this. 

2. last paragraph in Section 1.1 

s/This consist/These consist/

3. Section 2.1.1

s/However it can be used to lock a candidate datastore/However it can be
used to lock parts of a candidate datastore/

4. The title of Section 2.1.1.1 seems to me to be more appropriately
'Multiple managers handling the writable running datastore with
overlapping sections'

5. same section - I am a little nervous about saying 'The lock should be
held only a short time (seconds rather then minutes)'. What if the lock
can be help less than seconds or minutes at minimum because of the size
of the records to be operated? Maybe better is to say 'The lock should
be held the shortest possible time (e.g. seconds rather then minutes)'.

6. Section 2.1.1.2 - better (e.g. minutes, hours)

7. Section 2.1.1.3 - same comment as #5 for 2.1.1.1

8. page 6 - section 2.4.1 - 'these notes should be included in the
protected area of the lock' - it seems to me that a capitalized SHOULD
is appropriate here. 

9. Capitalization seems necessary also in 2.4.1.2 and also a change as I
do not see in which situations if locking fails the client should not
back-off. I realize this is client behavior, but the normative language
still seems to apply

So: 

OLD: 

   To avoid this situation, clients should lock
   everything they need in one operation.  If locking fails, the client
   should back-off, release any previously acquired locks, and retry the
   procedure after waiting some randomized time interval.

NEW:

   To avoid this situation, clients SHOULD lock
   everything they need in one operation.  If locking fails, the client
   MUST back-off, release any previously acquired locks, and SHOULD
retry the
   procedure after waiting some randomized time interval.

10. Last paragraph in section 3 - why is NOT capitalized? 

Dan

---

From: Balazs Lengyel <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:24:32 +0200

Hello Dan, Martin,
Thanks for the comments.  See below.

I attached a diff between the current 08 version and the future 09 version as it stands at the 
moment.
Balazs

>       into languages other than English."

BALAZS: Changed IPR to pre5378Trust200902.

> with the Trust, so no action by now on this. 

BALAZS: So  I should wait for further information. When and where can I find this, or will the 
chairs or you supply it?

> s/This consist/These consist/

BALAZS: Is OK if I change the paragraph to:
Protected area: the set of nodes that are protected from
modification by the lock.  This set consists of nodes in the scope of
the lock and nodes in subtrees under them.

> used to lock parts of a candidate datastore/

BALAZS: OK

> 'Multiple managers handling the writable running datastore with

BALAZS: OK

> be held the shortest possible time (e.g. seconds rather then minutes)'.

BALAZS: OK

> 6. Section 2.1.1.2 - better (e.g. minutes, hours)

BALAZS: OK

> 7. Section 2.1.1.3 - same comment as #5 for 2.1.1.1

BALAZS: OK

> protected area of the lock' - it seems to me that a capitalized SHOULD

BALAZS: OK

>    procedure after waiting some randomized time interval.

BALAZS: OK

> 10. Last paragraph in section 3 - why is NOT capitalized? 

BALAZS: Just to emphasize it. I removed the capitalization.

> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
> 

-- 
Balazs Lengyel                       Ericsson Hungary Ltd.
System Manager
ECN: 831 7320                        Fax: +36 1 4377792
Tel: +36-1-437-7320                  email: [email-masked]
draft-ietf-netconf-partial-lock-08.txt

draft-ietf-netconf-partial-lock-09.txt

NETCONF B. Lengyel

NETCONF B. Lengyel

Internet-Draft Ericsson

Internet-Draft Ericsson

Intended status: Standards Track M. Bjorklund

Intended status: Standards Track M. Bjorklund

Expires: December 5, 2009 Tail-f Systems

Expires: December 13, 2009 Tail-f Systems

June 03, 2009

June 11, 2009

Partial Lock RPC for NETCONF

Partial Lock RPC for NETCONF

draft-ietf-netconf-partial-lock-08

draft-ietf-netconf-partial-lock-09

Status of this Memo

Status of this Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the

This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the

provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may contain material

from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly

available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the

copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF

Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the

IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from

the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this

document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and

derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards

Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to

translate it into languages other than English.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering

Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that

Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that

other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-

other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-

Drafts.

Drafts.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months

and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any

and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any

time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference

time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference

material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at

The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at

http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

This Internet-Draft will expire on December 5, 2009.

This Internet-Draft will expire on December 13, 2009.

Copyright Notice

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the

Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the

document authors. All rights reserved.

document authors. All rights reserved.

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal

Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of

Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of

publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).

publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).

Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights

Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights

skipping to change at page 2, line 10

skipping to change at page 3, line 7

Abstract

Abstract

The NETCONF protocol defines the lock and unlock RPCs, used to lock

The NETCONF protocol defines the lock and unlock RPCs, used to lock

entire configuration datastores. In some situations, a way to lock

entire configuration datastores. In some situations, a way to lock

only parts of a configuration datastore is required. This document

only parts of a configuration datastore is required. This document

defines a capability-based extension to the NETCONF protocol for

defines a capability-based extension to the NETCONF protocol for

locking portions of a configuration datastore.

locking portions of a configuration datastore.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1.1. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1.1. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2. Partial Locking Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2. Partial Locking Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.1.1. Usage Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.1.1. Usage Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.2. Dependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2.2. Dependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2.3. Capability Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2.3. Capability Identifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2.4. New Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2.4. New Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2.4.1. <partial-lock> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2.4.1. <partial-lock> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2.4.2. <partial-unlock> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.4.2. <partial-unlock> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.5. Modifications to Existing Operations . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.5. Modifications to Existing Operations . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.6. Interactions with Other Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.6. Interactions with Other Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.6.1. Candidate Configuration Capability . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.6.1. Candidate Configuration Capability . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.6.2. Confirmed Commit Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.6.2. Confirmed Commit Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.6.3. Distinct Startup Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.6.3. Distinct Startup Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

5. Appendix A - XML Schema for Partial Locking (normative) . . 15

5. Appendix A - XML Schema for Partial Locking (normative) . . 16

6. Appendix B - YANG Module for Partial Locking

6. Appendix B - YANG Module for Partial Locking

(non-normative) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

(non-normative) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

7. Appendix C - Usage Example - Reserving nodes for future

7. Appendix C - Usage Example - Reserving nodes for future

editing (non-normative) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

editing (non-normative) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

8. Appendix D - Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

8. Appendix D - Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

8.1. 07-08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

8.1. 08-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

8.2. 06-07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

8.2. 07-08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

8.3. 05-06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

8.3. 06-07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

8.4. 04-05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

8.4. 05-06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

8.5. 03-04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

8.5. 04-05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

8.6. 02-03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

8.6. 03-04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

8.7. 01-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

8.7. 02-03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

8.8. 00-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

8.8. 01-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

8.9. -00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

8.9. 00-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

8.10. -00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

1. Introduction

1. Introduction

The [NETCONF] protocol describes the lock and unlock operations that

The [NETCONF] protocol describes the lock and unlock operations that

operate on entire configuration datastores. Often, multiple

operate on entire configuration datastores. Often, multiple

management sessions need to be able to modify the configuration of a

management sessions need to be able to modify the configuration of a

managed device in parallel. In these cases, locking only parts of a

managed device in parallel. In these cases, locking only parts of a

configuration datastore is needed. This document defines a

configuration datastore is needed. This document defines a

capability based extension to the NETCONF protocol to support partial

capability based extension to the NETCONF protocol to support partial

locking of NETCONF datastores using a mechanism based on the existing

locking of NETCONF datastores using a mechanism based on the existing

skipping to change at page 3, line 36

skipping to change at page 4, line 36

node in the conceptual XML datastore. It contains an absolute

node in the conceptual XML datastore. It contains an absolute

path expression in abbreviated syntax, where predicates are used

path expression in abbreviated syntax, where predicates are used

only to specify values for nodes defined as keys to distinguish

only to specify values for nodes defined as keys to distinguish

multiple instances.

multiple instances.

o Scope of the lock: initially the set of nodes returned by the

o Scope of the lock: initially the set of nodes returned by the

XPath expressions in a successful partial-lock operation. The set

XPath expressions in a successful partial-lock operation. The set

might be modified if some of the nodes are deleted.

might be modified if some of the nodes are deleted.

o Protected area: the set of nodes that are protected from

o Protected area: the set of nodes that are protected from

modification by the lock. This consist of nodes in the scope of

modification by the lock. This set consists of nodes in the scope

the lock and nodes in subtrees under them.

of the lock and nodes in subtrees under them.

2. Partial Locking Capability

2. Partial Locking Capability

2.1. Overview

2.1. Overview

The :partial-lock capability indicates that the device supports the

The :partial-lock capability indicates that the device supports the

locking of its configuration with a more limited scope than a

locking of its configuration with a more limited scope than a

complete configuration datastore. The scope to be locked is

complete configuration datastore. The scope to be locked is

specified by using restricted or full XPath expressions. Partial

specified by using restricted or full XPath expressions. Partial

locking only affects configuration data.

locking only affects configuration data.

skipping to change at page 4, line 27

skipping to change at page 5, line 27

2.1.1. Usage Scenarios

2.1.1. Usage Scenarios

In the following we describe a few scenarios for partial locking.

In the following we describe a few scenarios for partial locking.

Partial locking is primarily useful towards the running

Partial locking is primarily useful towards the running

configuration. However it can be used to lock a candidate datastore

configuration. However it can be used to lock a candidate datastore

as well. While scenarios using the running datastore are seen as the

as well. While scenarios using the running datastore are seen as the

most important, as an example a scenario involving the candidate

most important, as an example a scenario involving the candidate

datastore is also presented. Besides the three described here, there

datastore is also presented. Besides the three described here, there

are many other usage scenarios possible.

are many other usage scenarios possible.

2.1.1.1. Multiple managers handling the writable running datastore

2.1.1.1. Multiple managers handling the writable running datastore with

overlapping sections

Multiple managers are handling the same NETCONF agent simultaneously.

Multiple managers are handling the same NETCONF agent simultaneously.

The agent is handled via the writable running datastore. Each

The agent is handled via the writable running datastore. Each

manager has his or her own task, which might involve the modification

manager has his or her own task, which might involve the modification

of overlapping sections of the datastore.

of overlapping sections of the datastore.

After collecting and analyzing input and preparing the NETCONF

After collecting and analyzing input and preparing the NETCONF

operations off-line, the manager locks the areas that are important

operations off-line, the manager locks the areas that are important

for his task using one single <partial-lock> operation. The manager

for his task using one single <partial-lock> operation. The manager

executes a number of <edit-config> operations to modify the

executes a number of <edit-config> operations to modify the

configuration, then releases the partial-lock. The lock should be

configuration, then releases the partial-lock. The lock should be

held for only a short time (seconds rather then minutes). The

held for the shortest possible time (e.g. seconds rather then

manager should collect all human input before locking anything. As

minutes). The manager should collect all human input before locking

each manager locks only a part of the data model, usually multiple

anything. As each manager locks only a part of the data model,

operators can execute the <edit-config> operations simultaneously.

usually multiple operators can execute the <edit-config> operations

simultaneously.

2.1.1.2. Multiple managers handling the writable running datastore,

2.1.1.2. Multiple managers handling the writable running datastore,

distinct management areas

distinct management areas

Multiple managers are handling the same NETCONF agent simultaneously.

Multiple managers are handling the same NETCONF agent simultaneously.

The agent is handled via the writable running datastore. The agent's

The agent is handled via the writable running datastore. The agent's

data model contains a number of well defined separate areas that can

data model contains a number of well defined separate areas that can

be configured without impacting other areas. An example can be a

be configured without impacting other areas. An example can be a

server with multiple applications running on it, or a number of a

server with multiple applications running on it, or a number of a

network elements with a common NETCONF agent for management.

network elements with a common NETCONF agent for management.

Each manager has his or her own task, which does not involve the

Each manager has his or her own task, which does not involve the

modification of overlapping sections of the datastore.

modification of overlapping sections of the datastore.

The manager locks his area with a <partial-lock> operation, uses a

The manager locks his area with a <partial-lock> operation, uses a

number of <edit-config> commands to modify it, later releases the

number of <edit-config> commands to modify it, later releases the

lock. As each manager has his functional area assigned to him, and

lock. As each manager has his functional area assigned to him, and

he locks only that area, multiple managers can edit the configuration

he locks only that area, multiple managers can edit the configuration

simultaneously. Locks can be held for extended periods (minutes,

simultaneously. Locks can be held for extended periods (e.g.

hours), as this will not hinder other managers.

minutes, hours), as this will not hinder other managers.

This scenario assumes, that the global lock operation from [NETCONF]

This scenario assumes, that the global lock operation from [NETCONF]

is not used.

is not used.

2.1.1.3. Multiple managers handling the candidate datastore in a semi-

2.1.1.3. Multiple managers handling the candidate datastore in a semi-

coordinated work mode

coordinated work mode

Multiple managers are handling the same NETCONF agent simultaneously.

Multiple managers are handling the same NETCONF agent simultaneously.

The agent is handled via the candidate datastore. Each manager has

The agent is handled via the candidate datastore. Each manager has

his or her own task which might involve the modification of

his or her own task which might involve the modification of

overlapping sections of the datastore.

overlapping sections of the datastore.

After collecting and analyzing input and preparing the NETCONF

After collecting and analyzing input and preparing the NETCONF

operations off-line, the manager locks the areas that are important

operations off-line, the manager locks the areas that are important

for his task using one single <partial-lock> operation in both the

for his task using one single <partial-lock> operation in both the

candidate and the running datastore. He executes a number of <edit-

candidate and the running datastore. He executes a number of <edit-

config> operations to modify the configuration, then releases the

config> operations to modify the configuration, then releases the

partial-lock. The lock should be held for only a short time (seconds

partial-lock. The lock should only be held for the shortest possible

rather then minutes).

time (e.g. seconds rather then minutes).

Operators coordinate with each other. When all of them finish their

Operators coordinate with each other. When all of them finish their

tasks one of them orders commit. If any of the operators are still

tasks one of them orders commit. If any of the operators are still

working, and holds a lock, the commit will fail, and will need to be

working, and holds a lock, the commit will fail, and will need to be

repeated after all managers finish.

repeated after all managers finish.

Warning: When multiple managers use the candidate configuration in

Warning: When multiple managers use the candidate configuration in

parallel, there is a risk that the interaction of access control

parallel, there is a risk that the interaction of access control

(which is still implementation specific at the time of this writing)

(which is still implementation specific at the time of this writing)

and the commit operation might result in a dead-lock, as illustrated

and the commit operation might result in a dead-lock, as illustrated

skipping to change at page 8, line 15

skipping to change at page 9, line 17

The <partial-lock> operation is designed for simplicity, so when a

The <partial-lock> operation is designed for simplicity, so when a

partial lock is executed you get what you asked for: a set of nodes

partial lock is executed you get what you asked for: a set of nodes

that are locked for writing. As a consequence users must observe the

that are locked for writing. As a consequence users must observe the

following:

following:

o Locking does not affect read operations.

o Locking does not affect read operations.

o If part of a datastore is locked, this has no effect on any

o If part of a datastore is locked, this has no effect on any

unlocked parts of the datastore. If this is a problem (e.g.,

unlocked parts of the datastore. If this is a problem (e.g.,

changes depend on data values or nodes outside the protected part

changes depend on data values or nodes outside the protected part

of the datastore), these nodes should be included in the protected

of the datastore), these nodes SHOULD be included in the protected

area of the lock.

area of the lock.

o Configuration data can be edited both inside and outside the

o Configuration data can be edited both inside and outside the

protected area of a lock. It is the responsibility of the NETCONF

protected area of a lock. It is the responsibility of the NETCONF

client application to lock all relevant parts of a datastore that

client application to lock all relevant parts of a datastore that

are crucial for a specific management action.

are crucial for a specific management action.

Note: The <partial-lock> operation does not modify the global <lock>

Note: The <partial-lock> operation does not modify the global <lock>

operation defined in the base NETCONF Protocol [NETCONF]. If part of

operation defined in the base NETCONF Protocol [NETCONF]. If part of

a datastore is already locked by <partial-lock>, then a global lock

a datastore is already locked by <partial-lock>, then a global lock

skipping to change at page 10, line 46

skipping to change at page 12, line 35

not an Instance Identifier, the <error-tag> is 'invalid-value', the

not an Instance Identifier, the <error-tag> is 'invalid-value', the

<error-app-tag> is 'invalid-lock-specification'.

<error-app-tag> is 'invalid-lock-specification'.

If access control denies the partial lock, the <error-tag> is

If access control denies the partial lock, the <error-tag> is

'access-denied'.

'access-denied'.

2.4.1.2. Deadlock Avoidance

2.4.1.2. Deadlock Avoidance

As with most locking systems, it is possible that two management

As with most locking systems, it is possible that two management

sessions trying to lock different parts of the configuration could

sessions trying to lock different parts of the configuration could

become dead-locked. To avoid this situation, clients should lock

become dead-locked. To avoid this situation, clients SHOULD lock

retry the procedure after waiting some randomized time interval.

2.4.2. <partial-unlock>

2.4.2. <partial-unlock>

The operation unlocks the parts of the datastores that were

The operation unlocks the parts of the datastores that were

previously locked using <partial-lock> during the same session.

previously locked using <partial-lock> during the same session.

Parameters:

Parameters:

lock-id: Identity of the lock to be unlocked. This lock-id MUST

lock-id: Identity of the lock to be unlocked. This lock-id MUST

have been received as a response to a lock request by the manager

have been received as a response to a lock request by the manager

skipping to change at page 13, line 29

skipping to change at page 15, line 19

users's sessions.

users's sessions.

The NETCONF server may log partial lock requests in an audit

The NETCONF server may log partial lock requests in an audit

trail.

trail.

A lock that is hung for some reason (e.g., a broken TCP connection

A lock that is hung for some reason (e.g., a broken TCP connection

that the server has not yet recognised) can be released using another

that the server has not yet recognised) can be released using another

NETCONF session by explicitly killing the session owning that lock

NETCONF session by explicitly killing the session owning that lock

using the <kill-session> operation.

using the <kill-session> operation.

Partial locking is NOT an authorization mechanism; it SHOULD NOT be

Partial locking is not an authorization mechanism; it SHOULD NOT be

used to provide security or access control. Partial locking SHOULD

used to provide security or access control. Partial locking SHOULD

only be used as a mechanism for providing consistency when multiple

only be used as a mechanism for providing consistency when multiple

managers are trying to configure the node. It is vital that users

managers are trying to configure the node. It is vital that users

easily understand the exact scope of a lock. This is why the scope

easily understand the exact scope of a lock. This is why the scope

is determined when granting a lock and is not modified thereafter.

is determined when granting a lock and is not modified thereafter.

4. IANA Considerations

4. IANA Considerations

This document registers two URIs for the NETCONF XML namespace in the

This document registers two URIs for the NETCONF XML namespace in the

IETF XML registry [RFC3688]. Note that the capability URN is

IETF XML registry [RFC3688]. Note that the capability URN is

skipping to change at page 27, line 7

skipping to change at page 28, line 7

<nc:rpc xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:partial-lock:1.0"

<nc:rpc xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:partial-lock:1.0"

xmlns:nc="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0"

xmlns:nc="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0"

message-id="105">

message-id="105">

<partial-unlock>

<partial-unlock>

<lock-id>1</lock-id>

<lock-id>1</lock-id>

</partial-unlock>

</partial-unlock>

</nc:rpc>

</nc:rpc>

8. Appendix D - Change Log

8. Appendix D - Change Log

8.1. 07-08

8.1. 08-09

Clarifications

Clarifications

8.2. 06-07

8.2. 07-08

Clarifications

8.3. 06-07

Changed XSD and YANG to allow additional proprietary datastores to be

Changed XSD and YANG to allow additional proprietary datastores to be

locked.

locked.

8.3. 05-06

8.4. 05-06

Added usage example

Added usage example

Clarified error messages

Clarified error messages

Clarified interaction with edit-config continue-on-error

Clarified interaction with edit-config continue-on-error

Improved YANG: indentation, canonical order, contact info

Improved YANG: indentation, canonical order, contact info

Added usage example in appendix C

Added usage example in appendix C

Synchronized YANG and XSD

Synchronized YANG and XSD

8.4. 04-05

8.5. 04-05

Language and editorial updates

Language and editorial updates

all app-tags are with dashes without spaces

all app-tags are with dashes without spaces

Added usage scenarios

Added usage scenarios

Changed encoding

Changed encoding

Clarified definitions, separated scope of lock and protected area

Clarified definitions, separated scope of lock and protected area

8.5. 03-04

8.6. 03-04

Minor clarifications

Minor clarifications

Added list of locked-nodes to the output of partial-lock.

Added list of locked-nodes to the output of partial-lock.

Added <target> wrapper around datastore names.

Added <target> wrapper around datastore names.

Allowed atomic/one operation locking of datastore parts in multiple

Allowed atomic/one operation locking of datastore parts in multiple

datastores.

datastores.

Improved English (hopefully)

Improved English (hopefully)

Removed the <data> element from rpc-reply following the text of

Removed the <data> element from rpc-reply following the text of

rfc4741.

rfc4741.

8.6. 02-03

8.7. 02-03

Minor clarifications

Minor clarifications

Same descriptions in XSD and YANG.

Same descriptions in XSD and YANG.

8.7. 01-02

8.8. 01-02

Made XSD normative

Made XSD normative

Clarified that no specific access control is assumed.

Clarified that no specific access control is assumed.

Clarified that non-existing nodes are NOT covered by the lock, even

Clarified that non-existing nodes are NOT covered by the lock, even

if they where existing and covered by the lock when it was originally

if they where existing and covered by the lock when it was originally

granted.

granted.

Some rewording

Some rewording

Added app-tags for two of the error cases.

Added app-tags for two of the error cases.

Made YANG an informative reference

Made YANG an informative reference

Enhanced security considerations.

Enhanced security considerations.

8.8. 00-01

8.9. 00-01

Added YANG module.

Added YANG module.

8.9. -00

8.10. -00

Created from draft-lengyel-ngo-partial-lock-01.txt

Created from draft-lengyel-ngo-partial-lock-01.txt

9. Acknowledgements

9. Acknowledgements

Thanks to Andy Bierman, Sharon Chisholm, Phil Shafer , David

Thanks to Andy Bierman, Sharon Chisholm, Phil Shafer , David

Harrington, Mehmet Ersue, Wes Hardaker, Juergen Schoenwaelder, Washam

Harrington, Mehmet Ersue, Wes Hardaker, Juergen Schoenwaelder, Washam

Fan and many other members of the NETCONF WG for providing important

Fan and many other members of the NETCONF WG for providing important

input to this document.

input to this document.

End of changes. 25 change blocks.

65 lines changed or deleted

82 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.35. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:40:47 +0200

Hi Balazs,

Thanks for the quick answer. Please gather all edits but do not issue
any new version until the end of the Last Call

Concerning: 

> 
> > 
> > Also, the schema in Appendix A will need to include the 
> full text of 
> > the BSD license for code or a reference to it. This issue is still 
> > debated with the Trust, so no action by now on this.
> 
> BALAZS: So  I should wait for further information. When and 
> where can I find this, or will the chairs or you supply it?
> 

As I said, it's still in discussions and reviews. If there will be a
finalized text by the time you will do the revision I will let you and
the WG chairs know. Otherwise you can ignore this comment by now. 

Dan