Ignore that. I see you have already requested the RFC Editor to update the pattern. Thanks.
> On Dec 16, 2025, at 11:09 AM, Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Juergen, et. al, > > Does this updated pattern work? > >> On Dec 10, 2025, at 12:49 PM, Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Dec 10, 2025, at 19:18, Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>>> pattern '[fF][eE][89aAbB].*'; >> >> The WG’s intent is clear from the description: >> >> description >> "The ipv6-address-link-local type represents a link-local IPv6 >> address in the prefix fe80::/10 as defined in Section 2.5.6 of >> RFC 4291."; >> >> So this needs to be fixed. >> >> The pattern proposed doesn’t quite work right, though, as it would include >> >> FE8:: >> >> …which is not in fe80::/10. >> >> Suggestion: >> >> pattern '[fF][eE][89aAbB][0-9a-fA-F]:.*'; >> >> Grüße, Carsten >> > > > Mahesh Jethanandani > [email protected] > > > > > > Mahesh Jethanandani [email protected]
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
