>>>>> On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 19:22:44 +0900,
>>>>> Martin Duerst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I think Roy Fielding has expressed the URI side of this
> story way more succinctly than I could ever do. I fully
> agree with him. Below a few additional points.
Overall, his argument seems something like "this one is not fully
deployed so fixing this side should be easier; that one has already
been fully deployed and will never change". While I respect the
deployment status of the URI standard, I simply don't think this kind
of argument solves the issue.
In summary, I showed (why I think) the proposed format is very
inconvenient for users and I'm now asking whether there are serious
(possible) users of the proposed format despite the inconvenience. If
they are, I won't make further objection, and both the users and the
URI community will be happy.
The difficult problem will only arise when there are serious users who
want to use link-local addresses in URIs but cannot accept the
inconvenience of the proposed format. But I don't think we've not
reached that stage.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
