On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 11:20:57PM +0200, Kristian Larsson wrote: > > > On 2019-04-18 13:12, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 12:53:22PM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > > > On Thu, 18 Apr 2019, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 11:43:05AM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > > > > +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. > > > > > > Yes, but 2001:db8::1/64 isn't valid prefix (because the host portion of > > > the > > > prefix isn't 0) so why should it be "rounded" when 17.4 shouldn't be > > > rounded > > > if an integer input is expected? > > > > The non-prefix bits are irrelevant for the prefix and the canonical > > format has the non-prefix bits all set to zero. I understand that you > > prefer 2001:db8::1/64 to be an error but RFC 6021 and RFC 6991 > > consider this as valid input that can be safely interpreted to mean > > 2001:db8::0/64. > > Vice versa, if an implementation does treat 2001:db8::1/64 as a syntax > error, is that implementation incorrect? >
I think so. The types do not require that non-prefix bits are zero when a value is received. However, a server must report the canonical value, in this case 2001:db8::/64. /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
