On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 03:58:03PM +0000, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote: > > > But according to RFC-7950, from a language POV, I think that it is reasonable > to interpret the canonical format of ipv4-prefix to match that of its base > YANG type, i.e. string. > > 9.4.2. Canonical Form > > The canonical form is the same as the lexical representation. No > Unicode normalization of string values is performed. > > Section "9.1. Canonical Representation" does not state that the canonical > format of a type may be overridden by a description statement. >
Section 9.1 talks about 'types' - the text does not indicate that this is restricted to built-in types. We are defining canonical formats of typedefs since RFC 6021, which was published together with the first version of YANG (RFC 6020). Are you telling us that we got this all wrong? How do you test for say an IPv6 address in an xpath expression if you cannot predict how it is lexically represented? /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
