Re: [apps-discuss] [appsdir] Fwd: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis-01

Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> Thu, 02 May 2013 07:42 UTC

Return-Path: <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E27D21F8501; Thu, 2 May 2013 00:42:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AaTLY0QCoFSg; Thu, 2 May 2013 00:42:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E192121F84FD; Thu, 2 May 2013 00:42:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (demetrius2.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.47]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEC3720C54; Thu, 2 May 2013 09:42:00 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius2.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B37oqpB-mZLQ; Thu, 2 May 2013 09:42:00 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 468F020C4B; Thu, 2 May 2013 09:42:00 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id E440025EE922; Thu, 2 May 2013 09:41:57 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 09:41:57 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130502074157.GA4935@elstar.local>
Mail-Followup-To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis.all@tools.ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, netmod@ietf.org
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20130428233426.0b62fed0@elandnews.com> <20130430083206.GD46852@elstar.local> <CABkgnnUe=9RsND+30y3kK39AjvEHe4KKV2qsj=ZkqCAXf0GPHA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="pWyiEgJYm5f9v55/"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnUe=9RsND+30y3kK39AjvEHe4KKV2qsj=ZkqCAXf0GPHA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 02 May 2013 09:16:32 -0700
Cc: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis.all@tools.ietf.org, netmod@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [appsdir] Fwd: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis-01
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 07:42:07 -0000

On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 12:29:02PM -0700, Martin Thomson wrote:
> One meta-comment.  I don't consider the contents of RFC 6021 to have
> any bearing on the review of this document.  I'm not familiar with
> 6021, so I consider all of this to be new.

But most of the definitions are not new and I am reluctant to make
changes to published RFC text.

[...]

> > ipv6 pattern
> > Note sure what the "official" ABNF definition is but we believe that
> > the two pattern are correct. So far nobody was able to find a case
> > that was not properly accepted by the pattern. You are welcome to try
> > to find something where our two pattern break. ;-)
> 
> Sorry, "official" is my shorthand for saying: there is an RFC out
> there that defines this ABNF but I was too lazy to go and look for it
> because I know that chances are I will find the wrong one.
> 
> The first pattern is overly restrictive, I think (only double colon at
> the start?).  The second is definitely overly permissive.
> This:sentence:is::actually:valid.  (I think).

Please give me an example of an IPv6 address that the ipv6-address
pattern does not handle so we have something concrete to talk about. I
am appending some test cases to make it easier for you to find one.

If you mean by "second" the ipv6-address-no-zone typedef, please see
my response to Joel. This is a type derived from ipv6-address.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>