On 02/25/10 16:16, Seiichi Kawamura wrote:
> Brian, Doug, Antonio
>
> Thanks for the text idea.
> So the final fix will probably look like this.
>
> As IPv6 deployment increases there will be a dramatic increase in the
> need to use IPv6 addresses in text.
> While the IPv6 address architecture in RFC 4291 section 2.2 describes a
> flexible model for text representation of an IPv6 address this
> flexibility has been causing problems for operators, system engineers, and
> users.
> This document defines a canonical textual representation format. It does
> not define
> a format for internal storage, such as within an application or
> database. It is expected that the canonical format is followed by
> humans and systems when representing IPv6 addresses as text, but all
> implementations must accept and be able to handle any legitimate
> RFC 4291 format.
This looks great!
> I'm also going to change the MUST phrase in Section 6 to
>
> For URIs containing IPv6 address literals, [RFC3986] MUST
> be followed, as well as the rules in this document.
>
> as suggested by Brian.
>
> I'll also take some of the editorial fixes suggested by Doug.
No worries, I'll be pleased to know that you find any of it useful. :)
Doug
--
... and that's just a little bit of history repeating.
-- Propellerheads
Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
a domain name makeover! http://SupersetSolutions.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
