On 2/12/11 8:46 AM, Ben Schumacher wrote: > On 2/12/11 5:09 AM, Remko Tronçon wrote: >>> I think using RFC3986 (2732) formatting rules for supporting IPv6 >>> address/port in a single attribute would be fine. Any software that >>> intends >>> to communicate over IPv6 is probably going to need to understand that >>> format >>> at some point. >> Well, we haven't needed it so far, and this XEP would be the first >> time we do, but I may be missing something. That's why I'm also in >> favor of splitting it into a separate attribute. >> > > Remko- > > Splitting is fine with me, but I do believe understanding that IPv6 > address in the "host:port" syntax need to be in square brackets (it's > really that simple) is going to be necessary for application looking to > thrive in an IPv6 world. > > Otherwise one thing you might be missing the ability to connect to an > through a proxy at an IPv6 address. Or the full use of the XEPs that > rely on a URI parsing (XEP-0070, XEP-0124, etc).
BTW we updated the rules about IPv6 addresses in 3920bis, too: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xmpp-3920bis-22#section-4.9.3.19 Using the same format in XEP-0198 seems preferable to me. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
