On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 10:20:10AM +0000, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
>
> IEEE has their own definition using dashes instead of colons, i.e. the
> pattern is "[0-9a-fA-F]{2}(-[0-9a-fA-F]{2}){5}".
>
> E.g. from
> https://github.com/YangModels/yang/blob/master/standard/ieee/draft/802/ieee802-types.yang
>
> There has been some suggestion from folks in IEEE that they would like us to
> deprecate the IETF definition and migrate to the IEEE definition. However,
> this would end up being an NBC change and doesn't seem to be great from an
> interoperability POV.
>
> Another, possibly more pragmatic, suggestion would be the change both
> definitions to accept either ":" or "-". I.e. the pattern statement would
> become: "[0-9a-fA-F]{2}([-:][0-9a-fA-F]{2}){5}";
>
> What are folk's opinions of including this change in RFC 6991bis?
>
As of today, you can't change the definition, you can only deprecate
it and create a new one. On the technical side, we like to have
canonical formats, so the debate what is the canonical format would
still exist, even if we allow both formats as valid inputs.
Given that the colon format has been around for way more than 20 years
(see for example RFC 2579, STD 58), this exercise seems like a waste
of energy, it might take multiple decades to get changes widely
implemented and deployed.
/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
