- From: Paul Francis <francis@cactus.slab.ntt.jp>
- Date: Tue, 6 Aug 96 13:25:13 JST
- To: bookwyrm@agii.solluna.org, www-talk@w3.org
> > In the course of adding some experimental IPv6 support to my system, > include the WWW software on my system, I ran across an issue in parsing > IPv6 addresses and URLs, and am looking for documents, if existing, to > resolve the issue. > This is an interesting issue. I recommend you that you copy your original message to the ipng group (ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com). I'm not sure if this is a URL problem or an IPng problem, but I doubt that the syntax ambiguity issue you bring up is unique to URLs. In any event, the IPng people should be aware of it, and should probably themselves specify a way to append the port number to their construct. Having had a bit of experience with IPng back in the old days, I suspect that the desire of the IPng folk for the shorthand notation is primarily to make writing down multicast addresses easier. I personally don't think that there will be many unicast addresses that have a lot of 0's in them, so the savings in the shorthand notation won't be so much. As such, my personal inclination would be to disallow the shorthand notation when used in a URL. But then, I suppose that would be going against the IPng standard, so is likely to cause other problems... PF
Received on Tuesday, 6 August 1996 00:25:50 UTC