>I think loosing the ability to cut and paste these addresses is a
>problem. The % is in widespread usage today.
Indeed, that's why this whole thing is a sticky issue and there's
no obvious answer. My FreeBSD and MacOS machines all use the % too,
and have for years.
>My dump question (that ex
Agree, I suggested the same a few weeks ago ...
Regards,
Jordi
> De: Bob Hinden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Fecha: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 10:48:38 -0800
> Para: Bill Fenner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Asunto: Re: An Internet-Draft on lite
Bill,
Some think that this problem space is so small it's not worth it; I think
it's at least worth throwing out a strawman and seeing what happens to it,
especially since this proposal includes a modification to the grammar for
zone IDs in draft-ietf-ipv6-scoping-arch; better to do that before i
Elwyn,
I think the changes you are proposing are outside of the scope of what we
are trying to do with this draft (update and recycle at draft
standard). The filtering text is close to specifying new behavior that is
inappropriate to add at Draft standard. I think it would be better that
they
Title: RE: Last call comments for draft-ipngwg-icmp-v3-05
Mukesh,
Sorry for the delay in replying.
Responses in line...
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 09 November 2004 00:10
> To: Davies, Elwyn [HAL02:0S00:EXCH]; [EMAIL PROTECT
Folks,
When looking at the URI/IRI literal scoped address format (nee RFC 2732,
now rolled into the uri/iri specs), we noticed that there was a small gap -
you can't specify a zone ID. Since some implementations require a zone ID
to connect to a possibly-ambiguous scoped address even if it's n
