- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2011 13:37:51 +0000
- To: Andreas Petersson <andreas@sbin.se>
- cc: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
In message <20110408151335.33f559c1@hetzer>, Andreas Petersson writes: >On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 12:24:02 +0000 >"Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: >> [1] From my own brief survey: >> RFC1884 -> 2373 1080::8:800:200C:417A >> RFC1884 ::13.1.68.3 >> RFC1884 ::FFFF:129.144.52.38 >> RFC2133 -> 2133 >> RFC2292 -> 3542 >> RFC2373 -> 3513 >> RFC2428 EPRT |2|1080::8:800:200C:417A|5282| >> RFC2553 -> RFC3493 >> RFC2732 -> 3986 http://[3ffe:2a00:100:7031::1]:8080/ >> RFC3493 "numeric format" >> RFC3513 -> 4291 >> RFC3986 BNF form >> RFC3986 http://[3ffe:2a00:100:7031::1]:8080/ >> RFC3986 http://[v%x.????]/ >> RFC5952 [2001:db8::1]:80 > > >Which RFC do you suggest we refer to in this document? I think RFC5952 is an attempt to sanitize this area so I don't see there being any reason but to follow it. It generally makes sense and uses "SHOULD" about [...] where port numbers may be resent. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Friday, 8 April 2011 13:38:15 UTC