Re: Comments on Partial Locking -01

[Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>]

Phil Shafer <phil@juniper.net> wrote:
> "=?ISO-8859-2?Q?Tomasz_Miko=B3ajczyk?=" writes:
> >On Dec 11, 2007 9:53 PM, Mehmet Ersue <m_ersue@yahoo.de> wrote:
> >> IMHO:
> >> a) A partial lock after a global lock MUST fail.
> 
> Agree.
> 
> >> b) A global lock after a partial lock SHOULD be allowed.
> 
> Disagree.
> 
> A global lock means that I own the store and can do whatever I want
> with it.  I can perform my work knowing that no one else will change
> the config during the lifetime of my lock.  If you give me a lock
> after giving someone else a lock, then we _both_ think we are safe
> (which is bad), 

In both these cases, the discussion is what happens when the same
session performs these requests.

In all cases, as soon as there are any overlaps in locks from
different sessions, the request MUST fail.

This being said, I think it is ok to not allow any overlaps between
the global lock and the partial locks, b/c we do not want to modify
rfc4741.


/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/>