Re: [netmod] 6021 ipv4-prefix

Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> Mon, 29 April 2019 10:02 UTC

Return-Path: <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
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 67FD412008F for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 03:02:19 -0700 (PDT)
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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 4U80pOdWuQI0 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 03:02:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from atlas5.jacobs-university.de (atlas5.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5106212001B for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 03:02:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (demetrius5.irc-it.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) by atlas5.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7740D99; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 12:02:15 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from atlas5.jacobs-university.de ([10.70.0.217]) by localhost (demetrius5.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id MWqsY7-Xenae; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 12:02:15 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "hermes.jacobs-university.de", Issuer "Jacobs University CA - G01" (verified OK)) by atlas5.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 12:02:15 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (demetrius5.irc-it.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7773200DB; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 12:02:15 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius5.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) (amavisd-new, port 10028) with ESMTP id 9Af9Dkr-l4Ao; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 12:02:15 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from exchange.jacobs-university.de (sxchmb03.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.155]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "exchange.jacobs-university.de", Issuer "DFN-Verein Global Issuing CA" (verified OK)) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59829200CD; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 12:02:15 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from anna.localdomain (10.50.218.117) by sxchmb03.jacobs.jacobs-university.de (10.70.0.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.1713.5; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 12:02:14 +0200
Received: by anna.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 501) id 7D52230089EE46; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 12:02:13 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 12:02:13 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
To: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com>
CC: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20190429100213.vukmmbdsz5zlw6w5@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
Mail-Followup-To: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
References: <227a2452-69f9-6786-2643-822e70dc636d@spritelink.net> <20190425215134.pabdl3bbbjoivbaj@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <24fff697cde3ac2e0c9a09cf2dfa1153ca61bd90.camel@nic.cz> <5d6b915d-2b6b-2844-6343-5e42abe01e3b@spritelink.net> <20190426111829.6wkml53a72swxt4b@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <56a9b51c-d143-6436-7ebe-8db5f66b2fff@spritelink.net> <20190426153623.wpb4owuqsdfjc5q5@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <B2FAF932-0BD9-42BF-BBCA-38A37F6B33C9@cisco.com> <20190426173014.klub4kxbzucgfmyc@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <f582ccc854ae446291d6020822fae9dd@XCH-RCD-007.cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <f582ccc854ae446291d6020822fae9dd@XCH-RCD-007.cisco.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
X-ClientProxiedBy: SXCHMB04.jacobs.jacobs-university.de (10.70.0.156) To sxchmb03.jacobs.jacobs-university.de (10.70.0.155)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/9fn2_JjgeZcFjFg0Nx0Mwp8DxyI>
Subject: Re: [netmod] 6021 ipv4-prefix
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, 29 Apr 2019 10:02:20 -0000

On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 09:51:41AM +0000, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
> Hi Juergen,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: netmod <netmod-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Juergen
> > Schoenwaelder
> > Sent: 26 April 2019 18:30
> > To: Acee Lindem (acee) <acee@cisco.com>
> > Cc: netmod@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [netmod] 6021 ipv4-prefix
> > 
> > On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 04:55:02PM +0000, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> > > Hi Juergen,
> > >
> > > I must admit that I think this is the worst possible outcome. Independent of the
> > original intent, at a high level it is just not a good idea to accept the non-
> > canonical prefix format and return the canonical format.
> > >
> > 
> > So you propose to deprecate the definitions and create new ones?
> > Otherwise, I can't follow why a clarification can be the worst possible outcome.
> > 
> > Note that we do have different lexical representations this in several other
> > places. We accept +17 to mean 17 (Section 9.1 of RFC 7950.)
> 
> This feels somewhat different.  I think that it well understood that these are just the same thing.  E.g. anything that parses these into a integer type will internally end up with the same value in both cases.
>

For me, 10.0.0.0/8 and 10.0.0.1/8 both denote the same IPv4 prefix.

> I have a related question on the fraction-digits type:
> 
>      typedef my-decimal {
>        type decimal64 {
>          fraction-digits 2;
>          range "1 .. 3.14 | 10 | 20..max";
>        }
>      } 
> 
> Should a server accept a value of "3.140" for my-decimal?
> 
> What about "3.141"?  I presume that servers would generally not accept (and then round) this value, and except clients to round appropriately before passing the value in.

Please start a separate thread if you want to discuss this.

/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/>