I don't understand the comment "...implementation choice of one manufacturer."
As for the details, see https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nainar-mpls-lsp-ping-yang-00 Regards, Reshad. On 2020-07-20, 4:47 AM, "netmod on behalf of tom petch" <netmod-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of ie...@btconnect.com> wrote: I am not a fan of loopback seeing it as the implementation choice of one manufacturer. On the other hand, the IETF has defined documentation addresses which many if not most writers of examples for YANG modules seem unaware of so if we add anything, I would add those. Tom Petch From: netmod <netmod-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> Sent: 17 July 2020 20:25 - There was a request to add types for loopback addresses (127.0.0.0/8 and ::1/128). - This is related to an effort to define a YANG module for MPLS LSP Ping (RFC 8029) but the details are unclear, i.e., what is exactly needed and how such a type will be used and whether there is a common need for types for loopback addresses. - Proposal: do not add such types at this point in time -- 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 netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
