Re: [netmod] 6021 ipv4-prefix

"Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com> Wed, 01 May 2019 13:18 UTC

Return-Path: <rwilton@cisco.com>
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 9702912012F for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 May 2019 06:18:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 YaUDPpV6fwfb for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 May 2019 06:18:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 532D9120128 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 May 2019 06:18:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1625; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1556716705; x=1557926305; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=lEkAl6/uvnDw3UNSJ5/7Qxl1jGWx7pKDiZraHhWx+6Y=; b=ReMwm1tnmIH67r1ytOkVjlExoesC3cWCLwfgm4prwobJmjeY4ORipPnF V8ivO1zDm4mOyFNKjPQrMxgMouEYYMaR0GoNSZNHhdz+UmKiV6W1ULkZS oE7tgxrFy/swR9b+BHjC6E395cKzd/OVQn1WBLOWwwauD/C43FN4ha8+7 I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AHAABZm8lc/51dJa1mGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQcBAQEBAQGBUwIBAQEBAQsBghBpgQQoCpk1mFCBew4BASOESgKGMiM?= =?us-ascii?q?2Bw4BAwEBBAEBAgECbRwMhUoBAQEBAzo/DAQCAQgOAgEEAQEBHhAyHQgCBAE?= =?us-ascii?q?NBQiDG4IKD658ii8GgTIBi0sXgUA/hCM+gmECgUuFeASLB5wMCQKCCYYXjCA?= =?us-ascii?q?jlTWMEYZGjhYCERWBMCYCL4FWcBWDJ4V+ilNBMZJLgSEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,417,1549929600"; d="scan'208";a="553930648"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 01 May 2019 13:18:24 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-010.cisco.com (xch-rcd-010.cisco.com [173.37.102.20]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x41DINsA018987 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 1 May 2019 13:18:24 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-007.cisco.com (173.37.102.17) by XCH-RCD-010.cisco.com (173.37.102.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 1 May 2019 08:18:22 -0500
Received: from xch-rcd-007.cisco.com ([173.37.102.17]) by XCH-RCD-007.cisco.com ([173.37.102.17]) with mapi id 15.00.1473.003; Wed, 1 May 2019 08:18:23 -0500
From: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com>
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
CC: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] 6021 ipv4-prefix
Thread-Index: AdT0l4zGpLjvUofYRmmSWqlDWwoAHABSPgGAAAHDNYAAA12WgAABgE0AAAD0FQAAAKy0gAF1SI2AAAERvAAAFIrFgAAG4xuAAADAhYAACALZAAAA/vaAAAK/LwAAATq3AAB768IgAAtOeIAACmVD4P//tfSAgABTU/D//+IngIAAUdRQ//+41wCAAFEEMP//wy6AABznDYAAAdzWgAAFM7gAAADJUIAAMdJaAAAE8bQAAAQJZoAACnCAQA==
Date: Wed, 1 May 2019 13:18:23 +0000
Message-ID: <7865fdb6ecd14d3db76be98e70d4e8f7@XCH-RCD-007.cisco.com>
References: <20190429134615.f32zkbia6fqwk3to@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <b404565930694fd8af93326b5e754a2b@XCH-RCD-007.cisco.com> <0c4265d31adbf208a680f76216cc4bc42c766eae.camel@nic.cz> <959ed1a8092f4798ac0b923384962049@XCH-RCD-007.cisco.com> <20190429153643.oxfcq7ze6ttdihb4@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1904300713100.3490@uplift.swm.pp.se> <20190430061737.vvxghxyacd57k73i@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1904301038570.3490@uplift.swm.pp.se> <20190430090905.qsa3r4dwauilsxur@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1905011051160.1824@uplift.swm.pp.se> <20190501111712.347bpz26br6ox3jp@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1905011456580.1824@uplift.swm.pp.se>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1905011456580.1824@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.63.23.60]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.20, xch-rcd-010.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-6.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/G3XI0FYvrMzHIryyPk5n17-twXU>
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: Wed, 01 May 2019 13:18:28 -0000

Hi Mikael,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
> Sent: 01 May 2019 14:13
> To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
> Cc: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com>om>; netmod@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [netmod] 6021 ipv4-prefix
> 
> On Wed, 1 May 2019, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> 
> > I personally do take the standpoint that irrelevant bits do not matter
> > for the value of a prefix, i.e., 192.168.0.1/24 and 192.168.0.0/24 are
> > two different representations for the same prefix. You seem to take
> > the standpoint that 192.168.0.1/24 and 192.168.0.0/24 are different
> > prefixes since bits that are irrelevant do differ.
> 
> No, I am saying this is underspecified or actually wrongly specified in the current
> documents + proposed text regarding what canonical format is and isn't, and
> how the server and clients handle this.
> 
> I am fine with the current proposed text to specify this for ipv6-prefix, but I am
> also pointing out that I think when YANG 1.2 is specced, the definition for
> "canonical format" needs more/changed text.

I think that it is quite likely that this will get fixed in YANG 1.2.

It is being tracked as a potential issue for YANG 1.2 here, https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-next/issues/83, which means that this issue should at least be discussed/considered for the next version of YANG.

If there are particular points of clarification that you think are important/required then adding them as comments to that github issue would be helpful.

Thanks,
Rob