On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mar 7, 2012, at 16:29, Kerry Lynn wrote: > >> And hopefully coap://[v6.fdfd::1]/... would work as well? > > Oh. That may be a reason to go with v1, not v6... > > I don't think the idea is to *replace* IPv6address with IPvFuture. > So I was thinking that this version of IPvFuture would be specifically done > for the zone_id case. > So the v6 (or v1) serves as a kind of advance warning "there will be a > zone_id later). > As an implementor, I'd prefer a solution that works for all legal IPv6 addresses going forward. It's not outside the realm of possibility that these URIs may be constructed by constrained devices with multiple interfaces (maybe that begins to test the definition of "constrained") and I'd prefer not to have to special case link-local addresses.
My $0.02, -K- > Grüße, Carsten > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
