Hi,
You didn't answer my first question about what we actually mean - do
we mean the "URI"
I agree with you re the problem with pattern in this case.
The simplest pattern would be:
pattern "[a-z][a-z0-9+.-]*:.*"; // matches the mandatory scheme
but I think you will say that either we have a complete correct
pattern, or no pattern at all ;-)
/martin
Jürgen Schönwälder <[email protected]> wrote:
> Martin,
>
> the problem is finding a pattern that is guaranteed to not exclude
> anything valid and which is simple enough to be understood and put in
> a YANG module. People on the Internet tried to literally capture the
> ABNF rules of RFC 3986 leading to regular expression monsters.
>
> I am open for concrete suggestions. ;-)
>
> /js
>
> On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 09:52:23AM +0100, Martin Björklund wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > While reviewing draft-ietf-opsawg-sap-02, I had to study the type
> > inet:uri again.
> >
> > I assume that the type "uri" is supposed to mean the type that is
> > defined by the ABNF rule "URI" in RFC 3986. If my assumption is
> > correct I think we should make this clear in 6991bis. If my
> > assumption is not correct, then we definitely should add some text
> > that describes what is meant.
> >
> > Since (?) inet:uri is defined simply as "string" w/o any pattern, some
> > RFCs have been published with URIs such as "D1" and "1-0-1" (RFC
> > 8345).
> >
> >
> >
> > /martin
>
> --
> Jürgen Schönwälder 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
