Hi Juergen,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: netmod <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Juergen
> Schoenwaelder
> Sent: 26 April 2019 18:30
> To: Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [netmod] 6021 ipv4-prefix
>
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 04:55:02PM +0000, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> > Hi Juergen,
> >
> > I must admit that I think this is the worst possible outcome. Independent
> > of the
> original intent, at a high level it is just not a good idea to accept the non-
> canonical prefix format and return the canonical format.
> >
>
> So you propose to deprecate the definitions and create new ones?
> Otherwise, I can't follow why a clarification can be the worst possible
> outcome.
>
> Note that we do have different lexical representations this in several other
> places. We accept +17 to mean 17 (Section 9.1 of RFC 7950.)
This feels somewhat different. I think that it well understood that these are
just the same thing. E.g. anything that parses these into a integer type will
internally end up with the same value in both cases.
I have a related question on the fraction-digits type:
typedef my-decimal {
type decimal64 {
fraction-digits 2;
range "1 .. 3.14 | 10 | 20..max";
}
}
Should a server accept a value of "3.140" for my-decimal?
What about "3.141"? I presume that servers would generally not accept (and
then round) this value, and except clients to round appropriately before
passing the value in.
Thanks,
Rob
>
> /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
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
