Re: [netmod] 6021 ipv4-prefix

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.

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.

Thanks,
Rob

> 
> /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/>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod