On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 12:56:57PM +0200, Kristian Larsson wrote: > > I'm having trouble unifying the following: > - Juergen says RFC6021 and 6991 consider 2001:db8::1/64 to be valid input > that can safely be interpreted to mean 2001:db8::/64 > - NSO instead treats 2001:db8::1/64 as a syntax error > > If 6021+6991 says it is valid input, then NSO must accept it, no? > > Or does 6021+6991 say such a value MAY be treated as valid input? And if it > does accept it, it must then store or at least always return it in the > canonical format?
I do not find anything in 6021+6991 that says 2001:db8::1/64 is illegal input. If it were illegal, we would not need the definition of the canonical format that is in 6021+6991. Apparently text could have been more explicit but if you connect the bits and pieces, I think the conclusion must be that 2001:db8::1/64 is allowed input, i.e., you do not have to clear the bits that are irrelevant but the server will do this since it has to return the value in canonical format. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder 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/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
