IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netmod] question regarding IPv6 address format / canonical

Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> Mon, 10 December 2018 13:46 UTC

Return-Path: <lhotka@nic.cz>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93E52130EA5 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 05:46:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xFC6s_iOnCpf for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 05:46:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from trail.lhotka.name (trail.lhotka.name [77.48.224.143]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36B1B130E3C for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 05:46:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by trail.lhotka.name (Postfix, from userid 109) id 6D340182015F; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 14:46:26 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (nat-2.nic.cz [217.31.205.2]) by trail.lhotka.name (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0158F1820053; Mon, 10 Dec 2018 14:46:22 +0100 (CET)
From: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
Cc: netmod@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20181207091144.22bhdvp6q26wregm@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1812070913070.8891@uplift.swm.pp.se> <5ea8671bd7642bb39732dd60d3077c5642f435a5.camel@nic.cz> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1812070949190.8891@uplift.swm.pp.se> <20181207091144.22bhdvp6q26wregm@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
Mail-Followup-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>, netmod@ietf.org
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 14:46:29 +0100
Message-ID: <87wooh1olm.fsf@nic.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/3urF30KnthkU0z8bWMJNBjGc14E>
Subject: Re: [netmod] question regarding IPv6 address format / canonical
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 13:46:39 -0000

Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> writes:

> On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 09:51:53AM +0100, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>> > 
>> > It is the value that the server (conceptually) uses internally. See sec. 9.1 in
>> > RFC 7950.
>> 
>> Ok, so if the server doesn't re-format and always uses string in the
>> canonical format, that's a clear bug?
>>
>
> Yes. How the server does things internally does not matter but
> comparisons must conceptually use the canonical format (and this is
> why it is so important to define the canonical representation in type
> definitions).

When we are at it: defining the canonical format for a derived type so
that it differs from the base type (as it is here) is problematic
because it is specified only in a description and tools thus cannot take
it into account automatically. So I expect problems like the one
reported by Mikael to be quite common - and if not for the IPv6 address,
then certainly for other derived types.

Lada

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

-- 
Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email