>>>>> On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 19:22:44 +0900, >>>>> Martin Duerst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I think Roy Fielding has expressed the URI side of this > story way more succinctly than I could ever do. I fully > agree with him. Below a few additional points. Overall, his argument seems something like "this one is not fully deployed so fixing this side should be easier; that one has already been fully deployed and will never change". While I respect the deployment status of the URI standard, I simply don't think this kind of argument solves the issue. In summary, I showed (why I think) the proposed format is very inconvenient for users and I'm now asking whether there are serious (possible) users of the proposed format despite the inconvenience. If they are, I won't make further objection, and both the users and the URI community will be happy. The difficult problem will only arise when there are serious users who want to use link-local addresses in URIs but cannot accept the inconvenience of the proposed format. But I don't think we've not reached that stage. JINMEI, Tatuya Communication Platform Lab. Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------