Re: Allowing IP addresses as path-identiites

[Frank Ellermann <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:

> When someone votes "NO - IP Addresses should not be allowed
> as path-identity" are they voting that Relaying servers are
> supposed to reject articles which have an IP in the Path:
> header field?

We're not "voting".  It's only a poll, you can start your own
if you don't like Harald's.  When I posted "NO" what I meant
was this:

NO - I don't want IPs as "path identity", neither in the Path:
nor in Xref:, let alone nntp-URLs or Injection-Info.  It should
be easy to use a proper FQDN as name for _servers_ - and where
that's not the case we still offer the "traditional name" with
the necessary caveat that this won't work for conflicts.

> I hope people know what they are voting for.

s/voting//  Me too, if you think it's nonsense please tell me.
IMHO we've already discussed all pros and cons, it's possible
to get it right for IPs incl. IPv6, but it would be too messy.

> I don't.

Please post them if you have new arguments.  Just state what
you think - if it convinces Harald-with-hat-on he's free to
ignore all who posted "NO".  It's not really a "vote", it's
testing the water before declaring (rough) consensus.

                         Bye, Frank