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
xpired. 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, Br
)
If you intend to limit the character set more than 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 an
his work-around 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-
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 mo
