On Tue 26/Mar/2024 16:18:31 +0100 John R Levine wrote:
::00:ffff:12.34.56.78
0:0:0:0:0:0:ffff:012.034.056.078
The latter yields failure running the example program in the inet_pton(3) man
page. See e.g.
https://www.man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/inet_pton.3.html#EXAMPLES
My bad. After checking RFC 4291, 0:0:0:0:0:ffff:012.034.056.078 is valid. So
are 0:0:0:0:0:0:012.034.056.078 or ::12.34.56.78.
That's yet another reason not to change the XML spec. Please stop.
No. To take several years and come up with a syntax which does not cover all
valid addresses is a sign of incompetence that this WG doesn't deserve, IMHO.
What do others think?
Let's rather switch to /[0-9a-fA-F.:]+/. Terse and correct.
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
