On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 at 20:53, Christopher Morrow < christopher.mor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 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) > Yes, getting the four objects fixed isn’t too hard. If people agree that a doc discouraging the use of asdot should exist, please let me know. Kind regards, Job >
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
