I believe the rules are sufficient to make the representation
unambiguous, but the clause "lower case preferred" leaves a small
ambiguity, although most application search boxes can be set to don't
care for case.
The reference to RFC 1924 was not intended to belittle this effort - I
agree it is necessary and helpful. Many truths are said in jest - while
intended to be humorous, RFC 1924 did define a completely unambiguous
representation of IPv6 addresses. Apparently the lack of an efficient,
unambiguous and human friendly representation was already recognized as
enough of a problem in 1996 to inspire an April 1 RFC.
One concern I have is that as an informational RFC this will not have
"the force of law" and it may be difficult to motivate universal
implementation. Would a standards track doc as an update to 4291 be
completely out of the question? i.e. just to modify the Text
Representation sections (2.2 and 2.3).
Ed J.
also seems very significant that RFC 1924 is 4291 backwards....
--
Ed Jankiewicz - SRI International
Fort Monmouth Branch Office - IPv6 Research
Supporting DISA Standards Engineering Branch
732-389-1003 or ed.jankiew...@sri.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
