> On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 15:57:06 -0500,
> Bill Fenner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> My dump question (that exposes my lack of knowledge about URIs/etc.) is
>> since the literal IPv6 address are enclosed in "[" "]" to allow for the ":"
>> in the literal IPv6 address, why can't the "%" be us
> On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 19:03:51 -0800,
> "Roy T. Fielding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I don't think that they are actively used for significant operations.
> Yes, they are implemented (inconsistently) on multiple platforms
> (some allow names to occur after the '%", while others assume th
On Nov 19, 2004, at 12:57 PM, Bill Fenner wrote:
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
>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
unto: Re: An Internet-Draft on literal scoped addresses with accompanying
> zone IDs in URIs
>
> 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,
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
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
