William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > I would appreciate the active confirmation of this new parser by at > least a second set of eyeballs. We all know how notorious parsers > are at creating holes in the security of fresh software and code. > > The relevant RFC is;
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2428.txt While on the subject, should we also accept canonical form 3 from section 2.2 (x:x:x:x:x:x:d.d.d.d form) called out in... http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1884.txt in which case there is an omission in this parser?
