On Thu, Apr 26, 2018, at 13:21, InterNetX - Marco Schrieck wrote: > we found out that different registries have a strange behave while > removing v6 addresses.
[..] > What should be the correct behave in such situations ? RFC 5952 A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation August 2010, Standards Track Selected quotes: It is expected that the canonical format will be followed by humans and systems when representing IPv6 addresses as text, but all implementations must accept and be able to handle any legitimate RFC 4291 format. 3.2.1. General Summary With all the possible methods of text representation, each application must include a module, object, link, etc. to a function that will parse IPv6 addresses in a manner such that no matter how it is represented, they will mean the same address. The recommendation in this section SHOULD be followed by systems when generating an address to be represented as text, but all implementations MUST accept and be able to handle any legitimate [RFC4291] format. </quote> It seems to me that the system (EPP server) should accept the IPv6 in any legit format and map it to its internal format whatever it chooses to use, before applying any other kind of business rule, such as accepting or refusing the command. > IP addresses are anonymized. Next time, for obfuscation, use guidance from RFC 3849. -- Patrick Mevzek p...@dotandco.com _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
