On 10/21/14, 6:49 AM, "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Major Issues: >> ------------- >> >> Section 3.1.1 says: >> >> "The restricted >> rules to write a text representation of an IPv6 address [RFC5952] >> are >> not mandatory." >> >> Why not make 5952 at least a SHOULD? Personally, I would make it a >> MUST. As 5952 itself states, >> the ambiguity of the RFC 4291 format creates many problems. 5952 in any >> case requires that >> "all implementations must accept and be able to handle any legitimate >> RFC 4291 format", >> so making conformance with 5952 a SHOULD or MUST won't break anything. >> Thanks for pointing out that sentence from 5952. Given that, though I don¹t see a MUST has helpful and in fact it might be confusing. My recommendation is: OLD Any valid IPv6 text address format [RFC4291] can be used, compressed or not compressed. The restricted rules to write a text representation of an IPv6 address [RFC5952 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5952>] are not mandatory. NEW Any valid IPv6 text address format [RFC4291] can be used The rules to write a text representation of an IPv6 address [RFC5952] are RECOMMENDED. >> Minor issues: >> ------------- >> >> Section 3.1.1 says: >> >> "However, the zone id [RFC4007] is not appropriate in >> this context and therefore prohibited." >> >> Agreed, but you probably also need to exclude the extended URI syntax >> for this [RFC6874], >> since your base reference is the URI syntax [RFC3986] which is updated >> by 6874. >> This is just for clarification, since 6874 does not change the ABNF >> production >> for IPv6address. Do you mean that we should change the reference of IPv6address from RFC 3986 to RFC 6874? If so, that¹s a good suggestion and I agree. Otherwise, I¹m confused. -andy _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
