On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 01:48:25PM +0000, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > [wg-member] > > The thing is that most of the existing RFCs use inet:ip-address rather > inet:ip-address-no-zone. It would be better to if we could fix > inet:ip-address in RFC 6991 BIS to not include the zone similar to what was > done in the MIB (RFC 4001). However, we're getting the passive aggressive > treatment on this point. >
You either assume that all existing uses of inet:ip-address (inside the IETF and outside the IETF) are wrong or you are willing to break all the existing correct uses of inet:ip-address so that the type matches your expectations. The existing YANG update rules are pretty clear that changing the semantics of definitions is not allowed. Hence, all the WG could do is to deprecate ip-address and to introduce ip-address-zone. /js -- 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
