On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 11:43:05AM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > 2001:db8::/64 and 2001:db8::1/64 are NOT the same if you use them.
Why are they not the same if you define a prefix? > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6020#section-9.1 > > " For most types, there is a single canonical representation of the > type's values. Some types allow multiple lexical representations of > the same value, for example, the positive integer "17" can be > represented as "+17" or "17". Implementations MUST support all > lexical representations specified in this document." > > I don't know what the word "lexical" representation means here. Let's take > another example. > > If I commit "+17.4" into an integer, should I expect the netconf server to > round this down to 17 and commit that? This is effectively the same thing as > the above example. When I tried this just now, I got that 17.4 is not a > valid integer from the software I am using. Is this software doing the wrong > thing? +17.4 is not an integer, so this is an error (not because of the + but because of the . followed by additional digits). +17 is I think a valid integer value but the + will be dropped in the canonical representation. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
