[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: #1047 Path field delimiters and syntax - status

To: ietf-usefor@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: #1047 Path field delimiters and syntax - status
From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 20:05:02 +0200
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-usefor/mail-archive/>
List-id: <ietf-usefor.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-usefor-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
Organization: <URL:http://purl.net/xyzzy>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
Sender: owner-ietf-usefor@xxxxxxxxxxxx

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> but I totally despair of getting any consensus in this group
> within this year on exactly what the format should be.

Plan B, documented "bugs" are "features", we list the critical
IPv6-colon in appendix B.  Dito the possibility of IPs in the
Path as part of diagnostics - formally 1036 wanted "name", if
we list IPs as new "feature" then it appears to be "generous",
and not as arbitrary "restriction".

                      Bye, Frank

References:
- #1047 Path field delimiters and syntax - status
  - From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: #1047 Path field delimiters and syntax - status
  - From: Charles Lindsey
- Re: #1047 Path field delimiters and syntax - status
  - From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: #1047 Path field delimiters and syntax - status
  - From: Frank Ellermann
- Re: #1047 Path field delimiters and syntax - status
  - From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand

Prev by Date: Re: #1102 Suggestion to use "server" and "UA" in USEFOR
Next by Date: Re: merit (was Re: #1084 Names for ABNF productions - closing)
Previous by thread: Re: #1047 Path field delimiters and syntax - status
Next by thread: Re: #1047 Path field delimiters and syntax - status
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread