On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 11:47:05AM +0100, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> 
> 
> > On 2021-02-22, at 11:13, Martin Björklund <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 
> > Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Thanks Martin,
> >> 
> >> so you are saying that
> >> 
> >>  int8 { range "1..10"; }
> >> 
> >> is indeed different from
> >> 
> >>  uint8 { range "1..10"; }
> >> 
> >> and
> >> 
> >>  int32 { range "1..10"; }
> > 
> > Yes.
> 
> Oh.  People often choose uint8 etc. with an intention to set a range.
> I don’t think they know that they are setting themselves up for NBC if that 
> range needs to be extended later.
> So I would have expected that there is a common base type these are all 
> derived from.
> 
> RFC 7950 does not use "base type" as an absolute term; it only can be used 
> relative to “derived type”.
> I don’t know which of the built-in types are “absolute base types” in the 
> sense you would need it to define the rule.
>

Yes, "base type" is the wrong term, I think we talk about what RFC
7950 calls "build-in types".

/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

Reply via email to