Jürgen Schönwälder <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 04:52:41PM +0200, Martin Björklund wrote: > > Jürgen Schönwälder <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > For me, the only sensible option (other than accepting that types are > > > named the way they are) is to introduce ip-address-with-zone and to > > > deprecate ip-address and stop there. Yes, this means coexistance of > > > inet:ip-address and ip-address-with-zone until YANG is getting > > > replaced. > > > > But then what would you do with inet:host? > > > > I would define ip-address-with-zone to be the same as ip-address > (i.e., with an optional zone index) and then I would then use > ip-address-with-zone instead of ip-address in inet:host (like we are > all going to replace the deprecated ip-address with either > ip-address-with-zone or ip-address-no-zone in all modules in the > future to avoid depending on a deprecated definition).
But if people believe that we have a big problem that ip-address may contain a zone index, don't we have the same problem w/ inet:host? Don't we have to deprecate also inet:host for the same reason? (To be clear: Personally, I do not think that deprecating these typedefs is the best solution) > It does not make sense to me to have a type mandating a zone since on > all systems I know of the zone index shows up only when needed (and > creating yet another union seems overkill). Did anyone suggest this? I thought ip-address-with-zone was supposed to be exactly what ip-address is today. /martin > > /js > > PS: I guess someone will propose to use ip-address-opt-zone instead > ip-address-with-zone. ;-) > > -- > 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
