Yes, we can add that to the draft.
Cheers,
Oliver
On 10/15/25 8:20 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Oh, good. Thanks Randy.
Possible to add a one liner to say, "Backward compatibility issues are
covered by Section 10.2 of [RFC2622]"?
A
-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Bush <[email protected]>
Sent: 15 October 2025 19:11
To: Oliver Gasser <[email protected]>
Cc: Adrian Farrel <[email protected]>; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-opsawg-prefix-lengths-07 ietf last call Opsdir
review
hi adrian and oliver
- How will legacy implementations react on encountering the additional
inetnum fields?
rfc2622 ยง10.2 describes "adding new attributes to existing classes,"
which is what adding ther prefixlen: attribute to inetnum: class does.
same hack as geofeed: attribute.
10.2 Extensions by adding new attributes to existing classes
New attributes can be added to any class. To ensure full
compatibility, new attributes should not contradict the semantics
of the objects they are attached to. Any tool that uses the IRR
should be designed so that it ignores attributes that it doesn't
understand. Most existing tools adhere to this design principle.
randy
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
