Ladislav Lhotka <[email protected]> wrote: > t.petch píše v St 23. 08. 2017 v 17:28 +0100: > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Ladislav Lhotka" <[email protected]> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 11:53 AM > > > > > "t.petch" <[email protected]> writes:
[...] > > > > time in base YANG before anyone noticed - it was just too complex. > > > > > > Why was it wrong? Just because it was too complex? > > > > No; it contained a definite error. > > > > This was probably in yang-types and probably around 2012, quite late in > > the day, and it stuck in my mind that so many had looked at it and > > failed to spot that it was wrong, not just that it did not cater for > > some aspects such as interface I-D. I have used it before as an example > > of over complexity > > > > I will have the e-mail filed, along with several thousand other NETMOD > > ones so I will find it later rather than sooner. > > I believe you mean the case when it was realized that "ipv4-address" and > "ipv6- > address" permit also zone indices: > > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg07456.html > > We can hardly blaim the pattern expression for this though. > > Other than that, I am not aware of any reported problem concerning the "ipv6- > address" type. In fact, I even don't think the two ANDed regexs are > excessively > complex. Just compare them to ABNF productions proposed for the same purpose > in > RFC 3986, Appendix A. > > Lada > > PS. Yes, it's my child, so I do have a reason to feel offended. :-) Note that we had a different pattern to start with. The new pattern was added 2009-03-27, and it is still the same as in RFC 6991. The new pattern was a simplified version using AND; the old version was a single pattern. /martin _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
