Brian E Carpenter
2012-07-02 23:29:37 UTC
Hello Brian,
I have read this, and it looks "good enough" to me. It's the second time
we have to formally update URI syntax because of IPv6, I hope it's the
last time :-).
Thanks Martin.I have read this, and it looks "good enough" to me. It's the second time
we have to formally update URI syntax because of IPv6, I hope it's the
last time :-).
I also hope it's the last time. This gap was noticed (for the second time)
due to people actually installing and debugging IPv6, so I suppose it
corresponds to the "running code" motto.
Brian
Regards, Martin.
Hi,
The draft "Representing IPv6 Zone Identifiers in Uniform Resource
Identifiers", available in various formats at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid/ ,
has passed WG Last Call in the IETF. Before it's submitted
to the IESG, we'd appreciate comments from this list. If you
happen to have seen an earlier version, please do look at the
latest one (-01) which is substantially different.
Also please comment before July 4.
Thanks
Brian Carpenter
The draft "Representing IPv6 Zone Identifiers in Uniform Resource
Identifiers", available in various formats at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid/ ,
has passed WG Last Call in the IETF. Before it's submitted
to the IESG, we'd appreciate comments from this list. If you
happen to have seen an earlier version, please do look at the
latest one (-01) which is substantially different.
Also please comment before July 4.
Thanks
Brian Carpenter