On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 01:33:22PM +0000, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote: > > But I'm not convinced that allowing ipv4-prefix values in the non-canonical > format is necessarily the right thing to do. If we were defining these as a > new type today then would we make the same choice of typedef definition? > > > Or is a significant part of your proposal/reasoning to ensure backwards > compatibility with what we have today? >
I am trying to clarify what the existing definition says since there apparently have been different interpretations. /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
