On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> but the use of a "%" that is not used in escaping is contrary to the basic >> URI >> syntax--this is made clear in Section 2.4 of RFC 3986; changing that would >> require a major re-write to URI parsers. > > I am probably stupid, but that wasn't clear to me when reading 3986. > Of course it's clear that an actual URI on the wire needs to contain %25. > Anyway, I am completely convinced that the downside of using %25 is much > greater than the upside, so I believe we should revert to "_" as in > Bill's draft. I think "_" will cause much less heartburn; it may still require special casing, but of a much simpler type. <snip> > It has presumably never been released by the list moderator. But in any > case, I suggest delaying the review until we have a new version after the > recent discussion. > Makes sense to delay the formal review. You might want to give a short heads-up to the APPS area meeting/working group on Monday of the IETF week, if you have a candidate solution based on a combination of your and Bill's drafts. That will likely catch the right folks to look for other URI gotchas. regards, Ted -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
