Re: [netmod] [appsdir] Fwd: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis-01

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 12:29:02PM -0700, Martin Thomson wrote:
> One meta-comment.  I don't consider the contents of RFC 6021 to have
> any bearing on the review of this document.  I'm not familiar with
> 6021, so I consider all of this to be new.

But most of the definitions are not new and I am reluctant to make
changes to published RFC text.

[...]

> > ipv6 pattern
> > Note sure what the "official" ABNF definition is but we believe that
> > the two pattern are correct. So far nobody was able to find a case
> > that was not properly accepted by the pattern. You are welcome to try
> > to find something where our two pattern break. ;-)
> 
> Sorry, "official" is my shorthand for saying: there is an RFC out
> there that defines this ABNF but I was too lazy to go and look for it
> because I know that chances are I will find the wrong one.
> 
> The first pattern is overly restrictive, I think (only double colon at
> the start?).  The second is definitely overly permissive.
> This:sentence:is::actually:valid.  (I think).

Please give me an example of an IPv6 address that the ipv6-address
pattern does not handle so we have something concrete to talk about. I
am appending some test cases to make it easier for you to find one.

If you mean by "second" the ipv6-address-no-zone typedef, please see
my response to Joel. This is a type derived from ipv6-address.

/js

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