IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Netconf] Confirmed commit

Jonathan Hansford <Jonathan@hansfords.net> Thu, 19 September 2013 12:41 UTC

Return-Path: <jonathan@hansfords.net>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 689BB21F943C for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 05:41:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.298
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.300, BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mUICi0nhWD1V for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 05:41:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from avasout07.plus.net (avasout07.plus.net [84.93.230.235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EAC521F93F8 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 05:41:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.plus.net ([84.93.228.66]) by avasout07 with smtp id T0hV1m0071SbfYc010hVPg; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 13:41:30 +0100
X-CM-Score: 0.00
X-CNFS-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=GK4xTI9K c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=C5+YawzV8SR07mwocaP9vA==:117 a=MEK23cO9Z3nTrtfM1ievvA==:17 a=0Bzu9jTXAAAA:8 a=lxldWUwtbAkA:10 a=dYCPD3cKDi0A:10 a=0B8HqoTn75oA:10 a=6bkCdLdQAAAA:8 a=f0uUZFObAAAA:8 a=Af6SbmDO6U4A:10 a=yJ5w7H1UJ92kGsEnBloA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=S_TGt6QnTbHmjarnXU4A:9 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10
X-AUTH: hansfords+us:2500
Received: from host-212-159-134-100.static.as13285.net ([212.159.134.100]) by webmail.plus.net with HTTP (HTTP/1.1 POST); Thu, 19 Sep 2013 13:41:29 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_4a83001d5b5306c7fb829ed4133d8e67"
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 13:41:29 +0100
From: Jonathan Hansford <Jonathan@hansfords.net>
To: Netconf <netconf@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <76a7f77cfd72c64ce0459f00d430df4d@imap.plus.net>
X-Sender: Jonathan@hansfords.net
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.7.4
X-Originating-IP: [212.159.134.100]
Subject: [Netconf] Confirmed commit
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netconf>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 12:41:40 -0000

 

Hi, 

I am writing an Interface Definition Document that references
NETCONF but am struggling to explain the terminology surrounding
confirmed and confirming commits. From my reading, the difference
between a confirmed commit and a confirming commit is the latter
effectively marks the end of a transaction (running configuration cannot
be rolled back beyond the last confirming commit). Consequently, it
seems to me that a "confirmed commit" would be better described as an
"unconfirmed commit" since it is not confirmed until followed by a
"confirming commit". Can someone explain the choice of the current
terminology and correct any erroneous assumptions I have made? 

Thanks,


Jonathan

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email