Rob,
using '"(%.+)"' in the IP address types may be the most liberal answer
and in line with the interface YANG module. Applications using
draft-ietf-6man-rfc6874bis will have to resort to %-encodings to deal
with forward slashes and the like, which likely is OK in the web
context.
I do not think
On 25-Mar-23 02:29, Jürgen Schönwälder wrote:
Rob,
using '"(%.+)"' in the IP address types may be the most liberal answer
and in line with the interface YANG module. Applications using
draft-ietf-6man-rfc6874bis will have to resort to %-encodings to deal
with forward slashes and the like, which
The NETMOD agenda has been updated:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/116/session/netmod
And produced in full below for convenience.
Kent (and Jason for putting it together!)
# Agenda/Materials for the NETMOD 116 WG Session
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/116/materials/agenda
On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 08:31:28AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 25-Mar-23 02:29, Jürgen Schönwälder wrote:
> > Rob,
> >
> > using '"(%.+)"' in the IP address types may be the most liberal answer
> > and in line with the interface YANG module. Applications using
> > draft-ietf-6man-rfc6874b
On 24. Mar 2023, at 22:29, Jürgen Schönwälder
wrote:
>
> using '"(%.+)"' in the IP address types may be the most liberal answer
Pedantically speaking, no.
/./ does not include all of ASCII, which is not liberal enough if you want to
preserve the newlines in your interface names that are putat