Subject: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis

From: Kent Watsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 20:34:56 +0000

NETMOD WG,

A conversation in NETCONF WG regarding the yang-push noted that it might be 
time to update RFC 6991, in particular to introduce a type for time-duration.

  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/KaUJloIShkLNIXTuHZNwB-SYBnQ

In addition, it might be good to introduce [inet?] types for RFC 5322 
(Internet Message Format) including perhaps:

  - email-address        (addr-spec, per Section 3.4.1)
  - named-email-address  (name-addr, per Section 3.4)

Kent // contributor

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 00:01:38 +0100

>   - named-email-address  (name-addr, per Section 3.4)

Where are these used? Or have these already been used somewhere?

/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/>

---

From: Kent Watsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 00:05:17 +0000

> Where are these used? Or have these already been used somewhere?

I'm unaware of these ever having been used before.  I am working on a private module for which I want to configure an email address.  After some searching, I concluded that no such types have been defined, and thus thought that they might be good candidates for addition.

Kent // contributor

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 11:14:48 +0100

> I'm unaware of these ever having been used before.  I am working on a private module for which I want to configure an email address.  After some searching, I concluded that no such types have been…

It would be good to have strong use cases. I fear that defining this
type won't be easy given that we also have internationalized email
addresses (RFC 6530 provides an overview) and we might have to create
a union of RFC 5322 addresses and "SMTPUTF8 (compliant) addresses".

/js

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 13:02:48 -0700

> On Oct 30, 2018, at 03:14, Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> a union of RFC 5322 addresses and "SMTPUTF8 (compliant) addresses”.

It would be slightly unfortunate I think if we were to define something that was obsolete at the time of definition. So yeah the union of all-ascii addresses and non-ascii addresses is in fact SMTPUTF8. To my mind that would be what you would specify, and that probably requires discussion.
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>

---

From: Ladislav Lhotka <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 13:26:01 +0100

Hi,

another update that was discussed recently is a clarification of the
XPath context for the xpath1.0 type.

Lada

-- 
Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 13:46:43 +0100

Here is my list of possible additions. I might have lost some items on
a computer that meanwhile is not used anymore, I will have to dig a
bit to see what I can recover.

/js