-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
(2010/12/04 1:07), Bob Hinden wrote:
Brian,
On Dec 2, 2010, at 2:33 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
There is no way this is an erratum. There was a clear choice in the WG
to standardise on lower case.
I agree. This was a deliberate decision
Brian,
On Dec 2, 2010, at 2:33 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
There is no way this is an erratum. There was a clear choice in the WG
to standardise on lower case.
I agree. This was a deliberate decision by the 6man working group, it is not
an error.
There could be no objection to a
I concur with support for the decision in RFC 5952 to establish a
canonical format for IPv6 addresses. The choice of lower-case was
deliberate and subject to review and consensus within the working group,
and should not be construed as an erratum. Opinions and
implementations may vary.
I should have said that I supported the clarification/revision to
canonical format in RFC 5952, as it was discussed and accepted by the
working group. I accept that you are proposing revising RFC 5952 to
allow both upper and lower case, but feel that an errata report is not
sufficient to do
On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 11:33:04AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
There is no way this is an erratum. There was a clear choice in the WG
to standardise on lower case.
[...]
In any case I would object to this erratum being accepted.
I agree that the errata should be rejected - erratas are
On 2010-12-02 22:17, RFC Errata System wrote:
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5952, A
Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation.
[..]
Historically from the 1960's, hexidecimal digits other than decimal
digits are represented by upper case letters. Lower case
Although the comments about lazy are specious, I support requiring uppercase
display simply from the viewpoint of easy recognition by those of us with
less-than-perfect visual acuity. There probably is no other strong reason
except apparent consistency of display which, in itself, is a good
There is no way this is an erratum. There was a clear choice in the WG
to standardise on lower case.
There could be no objection to a presentation-layer choice to display upper
case in a GUI as a matter of user preference. However, I was surprised by
the suggestion that upper case is better for
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
There is no way this is an erratum. There was a clear choice in the WG
to standardise on lower case.
Glad to hear this. I reacted very much like Jeroen Massar. That's SO last
century!
(Although I did check to see what ipconfig does in Windows. Upper case!)
Bert
On 02/12/2010 06:45 p.m., Cutler James R wrote:
Although the comments about lazy are specious, I support requiring
uppercase display simply from the viewpoint of easy recognition by
those of us with less-than-perfect visual acuity.
Huh? Increase the font size, get a larger display, etc.,
We examined many implementations before proposal.
Many implementations (such as Windows, Linux, FreeBSD,
and many other network devices) display lower case.
I would like to ask simple question.
Can we change many implementations?
I think that is too late.
lowercase is already de fact standard.
There is no way this is an erratum. There was a clear choice in the WG
to standardise on lower case.
Glad to hear this. I reacted very much like Jeroen Massar. That's SO last
century!
Agreed. I find lower case much more readable, and the errata should
not be accepted.
Steinar Haug,
12 matches
Mail list logo
