On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 02:35:03PM +0000, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > > We already a large number of models that use the existing inet:ip-address > types whose implementations don't support the zone. Why should we start using > this esoteric "no-zone" types in new models? Note you have RFC 9127 BIS going > to through IESG right now... Better to fix it in one place (actually three, > since there is ipv4-address, ipv6-address, and ip-address) then in who knows > how many since many vendors import ietf-inet-types in their native models. >
I can't tell how many usages of ip-address are out there where the optional zone never applies and how many usages of ip-address are out there where dropping the optional zone breaks models for deployments where link-local addresses are used. What we see may be biased by the kind of data models we look at, routing related data models may show different properties than application layer related data models. /js -- Jürgen Schönwälder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
