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

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

From: Josh Cohen <joshco@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 13:00:08 -0800
Message-Id: <21FD6499922DD111A4F600805FCCD6F2BC3626@red-86-msg.dns.microsoft.com>
To: "'koen@win.tue.nl'" <koen@win.tue.nl>, mogul@pa.dec.com
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/5148
Ill also add this to the http-ext issues for the extensions documents..

Josh Cohen <joshco@microsoft.com>
Program Manager - Internet Technologies 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: koen@win.tue.nl [mailto:koen@win.tue.nl]
> Sent: Monday, January 12, 1998 12:52 PM
> To: mogul@pa.dec.com
> Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> Subject: Re: Heads-up re: IPv6 addresses in URLs (from IPng-WG minutes)
> Jeffrey Mogul:
> >
> >I was skimming the minutes of the IPng WG from the Washington, DC IETF
> >meeting, and found this:
> >
> >[Start of excerpt]
> [...deleted...]
> >    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).
> I remember that we had a discussion about ipv6 urls some time ago on
> www-talk, see for example the thread starting with

It was noted in that thread that [ and ] were illegal in URLs.

We did not really reach a consensus, but one intermediate conclusion
was that a notation like


with the . separating the address from the port number, would do the
trick.  I see however that you quoted some ipv6 addresses which have a
. in them above, I think we assumed at the time that the ipv6 notation
would use : only. 

Anyway, this is probably an issue between the ipv6 people and whoever
feels responsible for maintaining URLs (Larry(?)).  I am just
providing some pointers.  I think we should at least add a note to the
1.1 spec to warn implementers of this issue.


Received on Monday, 12 January 1998 13:03:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:04 UTC