In message <[email protected]>, Brian E Carpenter writes:
> Mark,
>
> On 2009-05-15 12:11, Mark Andrews wrote:
> ...
> >
> > [] is a kludge to get around protocols that had ":" already
> > embedded as a token seperator.
> >
> > ISC looked at this over 10 years ago when we were developing
> > BIND 9 and went with <address>#<port> where address can
> > have a scope identifier %scope.
>
> If we could rewrite history
>
> a) TimBL would not have relied on semantics to distinguish
> names from addresses in URIs
>
> b) IPNGWG would have chosen a different separator than :
>
> but I think we can't rewrite history. We had this discussion
> prior to RFC3732 iirc.
>
> Brian
We are constrained to use ":" for some protocols. Using
[] when so contrained make sense.
Forcing [] when not so contrained does not make sense.
It's the tail wagging the dog.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [email protected]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
