John C Klensin wrote: > http://[10.0.0.6]/ anyone?
My bastard browser from hell eats http://[208.77.188.166]/ It's certainly no STD 66 URL. But it won't surprise me if the URL-bis, charset-bis, net_2.0-bis, MIME-bis, XHTML-bis, (etc. ad nauseam) effort styling itself as "HTML5" decrees that this is as it should be based on current practice in the browser industry. That would be also the moment where I'd welcome a new TLD "6]" just to prove a "subtle" technical point. > the IETF has a lot of trouble making clear decisions when > those sorts of politics start to intrude. So far nobody disagreed with RFC 1123 erratum 1335. FWIW that also eliminates "6]" from the list of potential TLDs. Frank -- Repost, apparently my first attempt didn't make it. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
