Re: [Netconf] [NETCONF] monitoring data type definitions; proposed resolution to open item from IETF72

On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 09:38:10AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:

> Creating multiple data model representations of an address
> is not acceptable.  I raised this issue 3 or 4 IETFs ago,
> and the 'quick-fix' solution is still not available.
>
> The most basic data structure in the entire IETF is
> the InetAddress.  If we can't settle on a typedef for an
> InetAddress after all this time, that is pretty sad.

A single XSD definition of an IP address is not going to happen
anymore and probably this is not really a drama. I think EPP has an
XSD definition in RFCs and I would not be surprised to find more if I
start searching more systematically.

> Listen to Juergen.  He is right, and we should use inet-types.yang
> typedefs and patterns.  This issue has already been studied,
> examined, and delayed long enough.

Since it is too late (and too difficult) to have consistent IETF wide
definitions, having consistent definitions for NETCONF content or even
within IETF management content might be a more realistic goal.

/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/>
_______________________________________________
Netconf mailing list
Netconf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf