On 4/5/22, 11:37 AM, "Lsr on behalf of Jürgen Schönwälder"
<[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
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.
The best outcome would be to fix ip-address to not include the zone, introduce
ip-address-zone, and deprecate ip-address-no-zone. My take all the is that all
the existing usages do not require zone and this would be a fix as opposed to a
change.
Acee
/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/>
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
