Jürgen,
On 4/7/22, 12:08 PM, "Jürgen Schönwälder"
<j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 02:35:03PM +0000, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>
> We already a large number of models that use the existing inet:ip-address
types whose implementations don't support the zone. Why should we start using
this esoteric "no-zone" types in new models? Note you have RFC 9127 BIS going
to through IESG right now... Better to fix it in one place (actually three,
since there is ipv4-address, ipv6-address, and ip-address) then in who knows
how many since many vendors import ietf-inet-types in their native models.
>
I can't tell how many usages of ip-address are out there where the
optional zone never applies and how many usages of ip-address are out
there where dropping the optional zone breaks models for deployments
where link-local addresses are used. What we see may be biased by the
kind of data models we look at, routing related data models may show
different properties than application layer related data models.
Point me to one prevalent implementation that supports the textual convention
for zone for IPv6 link-local addresses? I suspect this would be akin to Abraham
finding a righteous man...
Acee
/js
--
Jürgen Schönwälder 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
