> On Dec 9, 2022, at 11:27 AM, Jürgen Schönwälder > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 03:41:05PM +0000, Kent Watsen wrote: >> >> The current date-and-time is not ambiguous because it asserts that either a >> 'Z' or an offset is present, making impossible for implementations to assume >> a zoneless form. Whereas the current ip-address is ambiguous because it >> silently accepts the "without" form, leading to surprise in some >> implementations when the expanded form is "unexpectedly" passed. >> > > The value '2022-12-09-01:02:03' is a valid date-and-time value.
Indeed, if it weren't missing a 'T' ;) > Where > in the description of the type does it say that this date and time is > in UTC?? I believe '2022-12-09-01:02:03' is a date-and-time value > without a known timezone. I forgot that the 'Z' wasn't required in such cases. Disregard. > And similarly, '::1' is a valid ipv6-address. The problem seems to be > implementations that do not support '::1%lo' because either the module > author picked the wrong type or the implementer did not implement the > type correctly. The ip-address type is _not_ 'ambiguous' nor does it > 'silently accept' something. Thanks for the clarification. K. _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
