Comments on Partial Locking -01

["Sharon Chisholm" <schishol@nortel.com>]

Hi

I assume since the new charter has been approved, this list is now the
correct place to discuss the drafts proposing to address those items.
Here are my comments on the latest partial locking draft.

I continue to like the general approach.

1. Section 2.1, last paragraph, I assume multiple partial locks is
achieved via multiple partial locking commands. This should be
clarified.

2. Section 2.4.1, second paragraph, I assume the discussion of the
partial lock not picking up new stuff to lock is done for simplicity? I
am not sure it is what the user would want. I'd also be interested in an
example of how new stuff get created if there is a lock.

3. Section 2.4.1, forth paragraph, is this defining a third way a
partial lock can terminate (when what it is locking gets deleted) that
should also be mentioned in the third paragraph of section 2.1?

4. Section 2.4.1, where it discusses that a partial lock will fail due
to access rights, isn't that all we should say. "The lock will fail if
the user does not have sufficient privileges ..." I don't think we
should be talking about having enough privileges to read. We don't know
what the access model will be and these could be separate attributes.

5. Section 2.4.1, where it talks about supporting XPATH when XPATH isn't
supported. Do we really want this? Wouldn't it just be simpler to
require XPATH. It seems people are supporting it anyway and if they
don't, they don't get this optional capability.

6. Partial locks should be included in the NETCONF monitoring draft.

7. Section 5.1 (Open Issues), if I can't lock the thing I am about to
create, then don't I need to lock its parent? This might be simpler, but
at times might be locking other people out unnecessarily.

Sharon Chisholm
Nortel 
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada

--
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/>