On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 12:02 PM Jürgen Schönwälder <
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 10:03:25AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
> > >
> > > The best outcome would be to fix ip-address to not include the zone,
> > > introduce ip-address-zone, and deprecate
On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 10:03:25AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
> >
> > 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
>
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 8:45 AM Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>
>
> On 4/5/22, 11:37 AM, "Lsr on behalf of Jürgen Schönwälder" <
> lsr-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de>
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 01:48:25PM +, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> >
On 4/5/22, 11:37 AM, "Lsr on behalf of Jürgen Schönwälder"
wrote:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 01:48:25PM +, 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
On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 01:48:25PM +, 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
Hi Chris,
On 4/5/22, 10:47 AM, "Christian Hopps" wrote:
> On Apr 5, 2022, at 09:48, 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
> On Apr 5, 2022, at 09:48, 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
>
[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
If they are new leaf values why not use the correct no-zone variant, what's the
harm in doing it right? It has a nice side effect of basically restricting the
base spec zone values to no-zone only. :)
Thanks,
Chris.
[wg member]
> On Apr 4, 2022, at 12:30, Acee Lindem (acee)
> wrote:
>
> In
Hi Robert,
>> Or you think that DROID as proposed could take on day one flowspec v2 with
>> its various extensions as example ?
I realized I did not answer this explicitly.
DROID aspires to be completely generic. If it can be encoded in bytes, then
there’s no reason that it can’t go in
10 matches
Mail list logo
