Richard Laager via devel <devel@ntpsec.org>: > And the question would be how to deal with a request for a port only. > There seem like two ways to allow that: > > 8: ask 10123 > 9: ask :10123 > > #9 is not ambiguous with anything, but looks weird and is almost > ambiguous with #5, as ::10123 is an IPv6 address (albeit not one that is > likely to be reachable). > > #8 is probably not ambiguous in practice, though technically it is a > valid domain name (albeit one that requires a DNS search path).
I'd prefer 9 myself, but I'll have to look at the implementation complexity.
On the one hand, I like the syntactic clue that this is a port number. On
the other hand that is definitely going to complicate the value processing
some.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
My work is funded by the Internet Civil Engineering Institute: https://icei.org
Please visit their site and donate: the civilization you save might be your own.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
