- From: Phillip M. Hallam-Baker <hallam@ai.mit.edu>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 18:36:17 -0500
- To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
> Colons break URL parsers "hostname" syntax
>
> Proposals:
>
> http://--ABCD-EF12-192.100.1.2.ipv6:80/
> http://[ABCD:EF12:192.100.1.2]:80/
>
> Issue: Should IPng w.g. reopen the "colon" notation?
>
> Heated discussion. Most comments that this is stupid, we should
> not reopen IPv6 text notation. Long discussion. Issue seems to be
> that many parsers that take URL's are very limited.
>
> No one was in favor of changing current text representation.
> Extremely strong consensus!
This is an interoperation issue. The strength of consensus inside
the IP-NG group is frankly not very relevant. Their proposal will
break a substantial piece of existing infrastructure.
At the very least we deserve some form of argument for the IP-NG
group's preference. Until one is provided I don't think we can have
much of an argument here.
I am not even sure where the colon notation was intended to be
used. If they intend it to be used within URIs then the question is
defacto reopened. If they don't want to reopen the discussion it
is likely that the URI group will address the issue by creating a
new (and incompatible) text representation.
It is acceptable for a group to introduce a notation that has limited
utility, it is also acceptable for a group to negotiate with others to
achieve a consensus about a solution that will meet the needs of a
wider constituency. It is not acceptable for a group to declare that
they want a notation to be general but they don't want to talk about it
As Jim points out the question is not one for the IP-NG group to
make, it is within the URI group's remit and ultimately is the type
of matter where the IESG may have to rule.
Phill
Received on Monday, 12 January 1998 15:40:59 UTC