On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 12:02 PM Jürgen Schönwälder <
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 10:03:25AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
> > >
> > > The best outcome would be to fix ip-address to not include the zone,
> > > introduce ip-address-zone, and deprecate
On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 10:03:25AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
> >
> > The best outcome would be to fix ip-address to not include the zone,
> > introduce ip-address-zone, and deprecate ip-address-no-zone. My take all
> > the is that all the existing usages do not require zone and this would be a
>
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 8:45 AM Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>
>
> On 4/5/22, 11:37 AM, "Lsr on behalf of Jürgen Schönwälder" <
> lsr-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de>
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 01:48:25PM +, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> >
On 4/5/22, 11:37 AM, "Lsr on behalf of Jürgen Schönwälder"
wrote:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 01:48:25PM +, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> [wg-member]
>
> The thing is that most of the existing RFCs use inet:ip-address rather
inet:ip-address-no-zone. It would be better to if
On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 01:48:25PM +, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> [wg-member]
>
> The thing is that most of the existing RFCs use inet:ip-address rather
> inet:ip-address-no-zone. It would be better to if we could fix
> inet:ip-address in RFC 6991 BIS to not include the zone similar to what
> On Apr 5, 2022, at 09:48, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>
> [wg-member]
>
> The thing is that most of the existing RFCs use inet:ip-address rather
> inet:ip-address-no-zone. It would be better to if we could fix
> inet:ip-address in RFC 6991 BIS to not include the zone similar to what was
>
[wg-member]
The thing is that most of the existing RFCs use inet:ip-address rather
inet:ip-address-no-zone. It would be better to if we could fix inet:ip-address
in RFC 6991 BIS to not include the zone similar to what was done in the MIB
(RFC 4001). However, we're getting the passive
If they are new leaf values why not use the correct no-zone variant, what's the
harm in doing it right? It has a nice side effect of basically restricting the
base spec zone values to no-zone only. :)
Thanks,
Chris.
[wg member]
> On Apr 4, 2022, at 12:30, Acee Lindem (acee)
> wrote:
>
> In
On 05/04/2022 09:14, Jernej Tuljak wrote:
The presence of the intermediate grouping is a pure module-internal
modeling detail. I believe introducing/removing the grouping is a
non-breaking change as per RFC6020 (if memory serves right).
Module updating rules state this:
o Any set of
On 05/04/2022 00:34, Robert Varga wrote:
On 04/04/2022 13:48, Jernej Tuljak wrote:
> If both "leaf" data nodes are instantiated (XML encoding) as
part of for "foo", does come before or after (in
document order)?
Augmented-in nodes come after other nodes.
Maybe this is an
On 04/04/2022 17:16, Andy Bierman wrote:
On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 4:48 AM Jernej Tuljak
wrote:
On 01/04/2022 15:49, Andy Bierman wrote:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 4:24 AM Kent Watsen wrote:
Hi Jernej,
> RFC7950, 7.14.4. says:
>
> Input parameters
11 matches
Mail list logo
