On 10/12/2014 03:54, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Dec 9, 2014, at 9:31 AM, t.p. <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> The expression that controls the permissible format of IPv6 addresses in
>> yang-types is of this ilk.
>> " type string {
>> pattern '((:|[0-9a-fA-F]{0,4}):)([0-9a-fA-F]{0,4}:){0,5}'
>> + '((([0-9a-fA-F]{0,4}:)?(:|[0-9a-fA-F]{0,4}))|'
>> + '(((25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|[01]?[0-9]?[0-9])\.){3}'
>> + '(25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|[01]?[0-9]?[0-9])))'
>> + '(/(([0-9])|([0-9]{2})|(1[0-1][0-9])|(12[0-8])))';
>> pattern '(([^:]+:){6}(([^:]+:[^:]+)|(.*\..*)))|'
>> + '((([^:]+:)*[^:]+)?::(([^:]+:)*[^:]+)?)'
>> + '(/.+)'; "
>> which was got wrong several times before it became what it is now (which
>> rings alarm bells for me).
>
> Wow, so there's no way to do this ABNF-style?
In fairness, it took numerous attempts to get the ABNF for the text
representation of IPv6 addresses right, with RFC 6874 being the latest
twist (which, if I am not mistaken, is not covered by the above
gobbledygook; at least, I don't see anything in there that seems
equivalent to '"%25" ZoneID', but maybe I missed it).
Brian