Re: [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-02.txt]

Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> Mon, 16 July 2012 11:06 UTC

Return-Path: <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EB4D21F87B9 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 04:06:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.206
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.206 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.043, 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 9MPl5HvFVYY6 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 04:06:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52A1321F87B6 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 04:06:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (demetrius1.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.46]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5159320BE9; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 13:07:42 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius1.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2T1YeFW5a9Kg; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 13:07:42 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AC4120BC1; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 13:07:41 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 3111F20860BD; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 13:07:38 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 13:07:37 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-02.txt]
Message-ID: <20120716110736.GA28076@elstar.local>
Mail-Followup-To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, ipv6@ietf.org
References: <50018497.2050809@viagenie.ca> <5001A6A1.4020109@gmail.com> <5001A974.3020908@viagenie.ca> <500277EF.9040302@gmail.com> <5002AAC9.1000506@viagenie.ca> <5002ED98.3030907@gmail.com> <20120715164957.GB685@elstar.local> <5003BCA7.5070208@gmail.com> <20120716095836.GA11013@elstar.local> <5003F221.3030008@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5003F221.3030008@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 11:06:59 -0000

On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 11:51:13AM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
 
> > RFC 6021 clearly uses a textual format on the wire.
> 
> Yes, but there's a problem IMHO. 6021 says:
> 
> "  The canonical format for the zone index is
>    the numerical format as described in RFC 4007, Section
>    11.2."
> 
> That implies that 4007 does truly define a canonical format; but it
> doesn't. It says that a host SHOULD support numerical indices and
> MAY support other kinds of implementation-depedent non-null strings.
> That's underspecified when it comes to mapping into a strictly defined
> format such as a URI or yang. And (as in the SNMP case) the ASCII string
> is completely meaningless outside the originating host. "1" might not
> even refer to interface 1, as far as I can see.

Whatever other problems there might be, the typedef uses "%" on the
wire - thats the point I was trying to make. Anyway, the intended
reading of this text was:

  The canonical format for the zone index _in this typedef_ is
  the numerical format as described in RFC 4007, Section 11.2.

That is the "canonical" applies to the YANG typedef, not to RFC 4007
(but we use the RFC 4007 SHOULD format as the canonical format.

/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/>