Re: [netmod] type equivalence

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

Here is an attempt to come up with better wording. If people agree on
a new wording, I volunteer to submit an errata.

OLD

   o  A "type" statement may be replaced with another "type" statement
      that does not change the syntax or semantics of the type.  For
      example, an inline type definition may be replaced with a typedef,
      but an int8 type cannot be replaced by an int16, since the syntax
      would change.

NEW

   o  A "type" statement may be replaced with another "type" statement
      that does not change the semantics of the type or the underlying
      built-in type.  For example, an inline type definition may be
      replaced with a semantically equivalent typedef derived from the
      same built-in type, but an int8 type cannot be replaced by an
      int16, since the underlying built-in type would change.

/js

On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 03:20:02PM +0100, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On 2021-02-22, at 15:17, Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 
> > I guess considering the built-in types as incompatible is the most
> > robust approach. If we agree that RFC 7950 tried to say this, we could
> > file an errata and propose clearer language.
> 
> Right.  And we can keep the COMI key-to-URL mapping as is, as this clarification is necessary for its correct functioning.
> 
> Grüße, Carsten
> 

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>