On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 09:51:41AM +0000, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
> 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.
>

For me, 10.0.0.0/8 and 10.0.0.1/8 both denote the same IPv4 prefix.

> 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.

Please start a separate thread if you want to discuss this.

/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

Reply via email to