Subject: [netmod] rfc6991bis: inet:urn-scheme, inet:uri-authority, inet:uri-path, inet:uri-query, ...

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 21:18:03 +0200

- It is not clear how commonly useful these types are, the WG was
    pretty silent about this proposal.

  - On the technical side, it is unclear whether data is represented
    with percent escapes resolved or not.

  - Proposal: do not add these typedefs since their use seems rather
    specific

-- 
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: tom petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 08:50:21 +0000

From: netmod <[email-masked]> on behalf of Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Sent: 17 July 2020 20:18

  - Proposal: do not add these typedefs since their use seems rather
    specific
<tp>
I am starting to see the use of typedef uri as a way of referencing an entity in TEAS YANG modules following on from its use in one of the routing RFC (which I cannot lay my hands on just now) so it is possible that uri is about to catch on but I do not understand why they have chosen it nor what scheme it will be.  I have never seen much use of it in SMI.

Tom Petch

_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod