On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 10:36 AM Job Snijders <j...@ntt.net> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 01:26:41PM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > > > On Aug 6, 2018, at 8:20 AM, Nick Hilliard <n...@foobar.org> wrote: > > > > > > Job Snijders wrote on 06/08/2018 14:22> > > >> RFC 5396 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5396 described the "asdot+" > > >> and "asdot" representation formats for AS numbers. I'd personally > > >> prefer a single canonical way to represent ASNs (asplain), and > > >> while RFC 5396 proposes the adoption of a decimal value notation > > >> 'asplain', I don't think there is a document actively discouraging > > >> the use of asdot and asdot+ We've come across asdot+ notation in > > >> strange places such as RPSL, and I'm not yet sure how to proceed > > >> https://github.com/irrdnet/irrd4/issues/48 > > > > > > Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send. > > I'm not the biggest fan of that philosophy. Especially because in the > milions of objecst that exist in the combined IRR databases, it appears > only four of them have something with ASDOT in the wrong place. > > "hi $USEROFASDOTWRONGLY please do everyone a flavor and switch your $ASDOTMESS to $ASPLAINSANITY, kthxbi!"
you could do that, right? and educate to the plan you like ? :) (yes, this doesn't solve your larger problem of the next bad-user, which your proposed writeup might help) -chris
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
