- From: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 19:03:09 +0900
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: ipv6@ietf.org, uri@w3.org, Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com>, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp>
Hello Roy, At 05:58 05/11/08, Roy T. Fielding wrote: >On Nov 7, 2005, at 2:04 AM, Martin Duerst wrote: >> In the latest version of the draft, v1. is used. I think my >> original proposal was to use v6., because we are talking about >> IPv6. Roy, others, what was the original intention for the vX. >> syntax? IP version, or just a sequential id? > >v1 should be used. This is the second IPv6 form and there may >be others in the future -- the v has nothing to do with IPv. Thanks for this clarification. Sorry I got this wrong. >> The URI community has a lot of experience with URIs leaking >> (the first experience was that URIs themselves were not >> intended for end-user consumption). > >What? Of course they were intended for user consumption -- where >on earth did you get that idea? There are whole sections on >transcription in the URI spec. Well, I have to admit that I got that from Tim Berners-Lee himself. He was probably talking about the time around 1990 or even earlier, long before there was an URI spec. Regards, Martin.
Received on Tuesday, 8 November 2005 10:26:41 UTC