On 08-Apr-24 05:37, Jürgen Schönwälder wrote:
Please see inline...
On 06.04.24 22:50, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I am discovering your draft as I type, but I assume you are referring to
typedef uri {}. Assuming that RFC6874 is indeed obsoleted, you can just
forget about this issue until
On 08-Apr-24 04:59, Jürgen Schönwälder wrote:
On 06.04.24 22:57, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 06-Apr-24 19:52, Jürgen Schönwälder wrote:
I believe numeric zone identifiers were always supported so they
always work as a fallback.
Correct, but do all network elements actually support RFC4007
What is the plan with
that document? Was there any consensus on the zone identifier?
I ask, because I am interested in moving rfc6991-bis forward. Can we close on
this thread with lowercase and % encoding of special characters as the
consensus?
Thanks.
On Mar 31, 2023, at 3:43 PM, Brian E Carp
han RFC 4007 does, that should
be stated, and probably discussed on the 6man list.
Regards
Brian
Thanks.
On Mar 31, 2023, at 3:43 PM, Brian E Carpenter mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I just put two and two together and got five. There are so many threads that I
can'
round will apply in every type of device, but I
certainly can't see any other solution, since the URI syntax is very insistent
on lowercase normalization and special characters.
Comments?
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 23-Mar-23 14:48, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Hi Rob,
On 23-Mar-23 02:32, Rob Wi
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
Hi Rob,
On 23-Mar-23 02:32, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
Hi Jürgen, Netmod, & rfc6874bis interested parties,
In my AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-15, Jurgen has proposed a
change to definition of the zone-id in the ip-address, ipv4-address, and
ipv6-address types. These changes
