[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Comments on Partial Locking -01

I don't want to change RFC 4741 b/c of this, but I am sure, the intent of locking is to protect a session from other sessions/interfaces/protocols, and not to decide what the session itself should do. It is not the job of a protocol designer to tell management application designers how to work. This it why I think overlapping locks by the same session might go against the word of the RFC, but not against the spirit. 

Balazs

Martin Bjorklund wrote:

Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com> wrote:

If you change the way global locks work, then RFC 4741 needs to be
obsoleted and a new RFC published to replace it.


I agree that we should not change RFC 4741 b/c of this.



/martin



--
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/>