Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-14.txt

[Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>]

> On Dec 9, 2022, at 11:27 AM, Jürgen Schönwälder <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 03:41:05PM +0000, Kent Watsen wrote:
>> 
>> The current date-and-time is not ambiguous because it asserts that either a 'Z' or an offset is present, making impossible for implementations to assume a zoneless form.  Whereas the current ip-address is ambiguous because it silently accepts the "without" form, leading to surprise in some implementations when the expanded form is "unexpectedly" passed.
>> 
> 
> The value '2022-12-09-01:02:03' is a valid date-and-time value.

Indeed, if it weren't missing a 'T'  ;)


> Where
> in the description of the type does it say that this date and time is
> in UTC?? I believe '2022-12-09-01:02:03' is a date-and-time value
> without a known timezone.

I forgot that the 'Z' wasn't required in such cases.  Disregard.


> And similarly, '::1' is a valid ipv6-address. The problem seems to be
> implementations that do not support '::1%lo' because either the module
> author picked the wrong type or the implementer did not implement the
> type correctly. The ip-address type is _not_ 'ambiguous' nor does it
> 'silently accept' something.

Thanks for the clarification.


K.