W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1998

Re: Heads-up re: IPv6 addresses in URLs (from IPng-WG minutes)

From: Ted Hardie <hardie@orval.arc.nasa.gov>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 12:43:59 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199801122043.UAA15484@orval.arc.nasa.gov>
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, mogul@pa.dec.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/5146
A quick check of our search engine software shows that most
of our spidering will also break with these URLs.  That's
not as big a deal as the "complete browsers" breaking, from
our perspective, but I do think it indicates that these
parsers are built into a lot more than they thought.  I
would bet, for example, that it would complete break some
of the firmware "browsers" being built into phones by the
pocketnet people.
			Ted Hardie
> Our man Mogul writes:
>     It was noted that the issue is probably only relevant for complete
>     web browsers (e.g., Netscape, Microsoft, etc.), not all other
>     applications that use URL's.  If the complete web browsers can be
>     changed it is very likely to be sufficient.  Recommend that the
>     primary preferred syntax for IPv6 addresses in URL's be:
>       http://[ABCD.EF01::2345:6789]:80/
>     The IPv6 address should be enclosed in brackets.  URL parsers that
>     can not support this notation can either support the proposed
>     alternative syntax:
>       http://--ABCD-EF12-
>     or not allow IPv6 addresses to be entered directly.
> [End of excerpt]
> I'm not sure if this is really an "issue" for HTTP/1.1, but I suspect
> that the IESG will want to be sure that HTTP/1.1 syntax is compatible
> with IPv6, and if there are conflicts, we should probably make sure
> they are addressed.  Or make an explicit statement that we are not
> going to address them in this version of the protocol (and why not).
> -Jeff
Received on Monday, 12 January 1998 12:49:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:22 UTC