Hi Mikael, > -----Original Message----- > From: Mikael Abrahamsson <[email protected]> > Sent: 01 May 2019 14:13 > To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]> > Cc: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [netmod] 6021 ipv4-prefix > > On Wed, 1 May 2019, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > > I personally do take the standpoint that irrelevant bits do not matter > > for the value of a prefix, i.e., 192.168.0.1/24 and 192.168.0.0/24 are > > two different representations for the same prefix. You seem to take > > the standpoint that 192.168.0.1/24 and 192.168.0.0/24 are different > > prefixes since bits that are irrelevant do differ. > > No, I am saying this is underspecified or actually wrongly specified in the > current > documents + proposed text regarding what canonical format is and isn't, and > how the server and clients handle this. > > I am fine with the current proposed text to specify this for ipv6-prefix, but > I am > also pointing out that I think when YANG 1.2 is specced, the definition for > "canonical format" needs more/changed text.
I think that it is quite likely that this will get fixed in YANG 1.2. It is being tracked as a potential issue for YANG 1.2 here, https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-next/issues/83, which means that this issue should at least be discussed/considered for the next version of YANG. If there are particular points of clarification that you think are important/required then adding them as comments to that github issue would be helpful. Thanks, Rob _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
