Hi,
The -02 draft hasn't been posted yet, but I've seen a preview,
and I fully support it (the comments I made earlier on the v6ops
list have been incorporated). In fact, I think it should probably
be a BCP, since it recommends what is already done in many
implementations.
Brian C
On 2009-05-12 22:41, Brian Haberman wrote:
> 6MAN WG,
> A document (draft-kawamura-ipv6-text-representation-02) has been
> sent to the v6ops list for comment. The ADs and chairs have determined
> that it is more appropriate for the 6MAN WG since we are the home for
> any work updating the base specifications. This draft proposes changes
> to the textual representation of IPv6 addresses in order to avoid
> confusion between different ways of writing the same address.
>
> I would like the WG to review and comment on this document on the
> list.
>
> Regards,
> Brian
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
