Re: [netmod] 6021 ipv4-prefix

"Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com> Mon, 29 April 2019 09:51 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 7756B12001B for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 02:51:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 kX3Sil83wjUt for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 02:51:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D58EB1202F7 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 02:51:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1983; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1556531502; x=1557741102; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=DJItutwHB38RTRne0cEYbmetJ2wlF8DCfFqLWw8y2u4=; b=gLOlWd7rFsYC5YkYO/8tl91dyBPy2BrK9wlUkhmOWMRq8i3fHXl5fMsQ xBv+QbQ2pHtVtkLPY+uXZ6CkDnjHieXnwaJdDUCM60bnaxYV9Wx4U878f FPbCC3xu04pIZ9XWH+MUD5V7ze0f8FszelUrIYxPxGJkezJOy/GqDiUgA 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AHAABKyMZc/4wNJK1jAxkBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQEHAQEBAQEBgVMCAQEBAQELAYIQaIEEKAqZNJhQgXsOAQEYC4QERgK?= =?us-ascii?q?GMiM2Bw4BAwEBBAEBAgECbRwMhUoBAQEBAwEBODQLDAICAgEIDgIBBAEBAR4?= =?us-ascii?q?QGwwLHQgCBAENBQiDG4IID65TiiMGBYEtAYtJF4FAP4QjPoJhAQGBSzcmhRs?= =?us-ascii?q?EpncJAoIJkisjlSeMDZRNAhEVgTAlATGBVnAVO4JshjGEYYU/QTGTGIEhAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,409,1549929600"; d="scan'208";a="333742102"
Received: from alln-core-7.cisco.com ([173.36.13.140]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 29 Apr 2019 09:51:41 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-008.cisco.com (xch-rcd-008.cisco.com [173.37.102.18]) by alln-core-7.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x3T9pfki022101 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 29 Apr 2019 09:51:41 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-007.cisco.com (173.37.102.17) by XCH-RCD-008.cisco.com (173.37.102.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 04:51:41 -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; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 04:51:41 -0500
From: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
CC: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] 6021 ipv4-prefix
Thread-Index: AdT0l4zGpLjvUofYRmmSWqlDWwoAHABSPgGAAAHDNYAAA12WgAABgE0AAAD0FQAAAKy0gAF1SI2AAAERvAAAFIrFgAAG4xuAAADAhYAACALZAAAA/vaAAAK/LwAAATq3AAB768Ig
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 09:51:41 +0000
Message-ID: <f582ccc854ae446291d6020822fae9dd@XCH-RCD-007.cisco.com>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1904181251000.3490@uplift.swm.pp.se> <20190418111241.5csf5kkgwgxwtsnm@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <227a2452-69f9-6786-2643-822e70dc636d@spritelink.net> <20190425215134.pabdl3bbbjoivbaj@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <24fff697cde3ac2e0c9a09cf2dfa1153ca61bd90.camel@nic.cz> <5d6b915d-2b6b-2844-6343-5e42abe01e3b@spritelink.net> <20190426111829.6wkml53a72swxt4b@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <56a9b51c-d143-6436-7ebe-8db5f66b2fff@spritelink.net> <20190426153623.wpb4owuqsdfjc5q5@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <B2FAF932-0BD9-42BF-BBCA-38A37F6B33C9@cisco.com> <20190426173014.klub4kxbzucgfmyc@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
In-Reply-To: <20190426173014.klub4kxbzucgfmyc@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
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: 173.37.102.18, xch-rcd-008.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-7.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/jXh-PSl7xKYrFoptucmehQMb4LA>
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: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 09:51:45 -0000

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