> From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Then, does the following plan make sense? > > - in the definition of zone indices (Section 6 in the 03 draft), > specify that a zone ID includes its scope type and an ID in the > scope when an implementation handles the zone IDs. > - in the textual representation, only define the form of > <address>%<id_in_the_scope> > and specify that <id_in_the_scope> will be translated into an > (implementation-dependent) internal form containing both scope type > and the zone in the scope.
Sounds ok to me! Although, I wonder, why is it a REQUIREMENT that system MUST encode into format that that contains both type and zone id? Are there some RFC API's that assume/require such? [aside from this wordage in draft?] If implementation is such that it never needs isolated zone id (without address), why should it encode the type in? [Just curious, I probably end up encoding them together also :] -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
