Re: [Netconf] New draft-ietf-netconf-partial-lock-08.txt goes to AD andIETF Last Call

[WashamFan <Washam.Fan at huaweisymantec.com>]

Hi,

>  I have to repeat, that the conflict is NOT the result of 
> partial-locking, it is between access 
>  control and commit. So why should partial-lock be responsible for 
> solving access control issues?

I admit partial-locking does not make the things worse, and without
partial-locking, the issues are still there. But on the other hand,
users might benefit little from partial-locking with these issues. And
partial-locking gives an impression it encourages simultaneous-edits
on candidate, which is the key reason of access control issues.

If we benefit little from partial-locking on candidate, then removing
the use case seems OK.

>  Unless the chairs and the AD agree with my reasoning, I propose to 
> immediately remove 
>  partial-lock for candidate and startup. While I stand by my earlier 
> arguments, and disagree 
>  with David, I want to settle this issue fast, and rather remove 
> startup and candidate, then 
>  keep on arguing.
>  
>  However remember, that restricting partial-lock to running, will not 
> make the access 
>  control/commit conflict go away.

I have no idea why the problem happens on running, since commit
does not apply to running.

>  Balazs

washam