Kerry, On 2013-05-24, at 3:44 PM, Kerry Lynn <[email protected]> wrote: > ... > scheme://[v1.fe80::xxxx:...:xxxx+zoneid]:port/path > > So it appears the current 'host' production used by print drivers is not > currently specified > by any RFC; why not just continue to use the same format irrespective of RFC > 6874?
Mainly because I expect that future (browser and print) software will use the RFC 6874 format, and we don't want to have one format for IPP printers and another for everything else... > ... > It's the browser case that RFC 6874 was primarily meant to deal with. The issue is that a) we need the printer to report admin and supply level page URLs the browser can use and b) printer web pages usually contain absolute URLs, so regardless of the client involved we'd need the printer to preserve the full address for the client. _________________________________________________________ Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
