On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 05:08:53PM +0200, Theo Buehler wrote: > On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 02:59:06PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote: > > On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 12:53:05PM +0200, Theo Buehler wrote: > > > Regarding the spec: > > > > > > * isn't it a bit unfortunate that the ResourceBlock contains an > > > ipAddrBlocks > > > member which isn't an IPAddrBlocks as in RFC 3779 but rather an IPList? > > > > > > The (somewhat) subtle difference is that an IPAddressFamilyItem has > > > an iPAddressOrRange where an IPAddressFamily has an IPAddressChoice. > > > I assume this was done because inheritance is excluded in this draft. > > > > Uh, yes, it would be good to be able to use RFC 3779 parser functions on > > can limit the usage of inheritance after parsing the objects. > > Indeed. > > After some refactoring we may be able to reduce the low level ASN.1 > bashing in rsc.c somewhat, but I fear the RFC 3779 parser functions are > only of limited help due to these unfortunate discrepancies. The asID > can't be deserialized directly for similar reasons. > > That's also why I think it's important that the spec is more specific on > how the ResourceBlock is encoded. There's ambiguity there (see the quoted > bit below). It should at least say that analogous rules as in RFC 3779 > apply and preferably be more precise.
It would be good if you share this insight with sidr...@ietf.org :-) Kind regards, Job
