Re: Allowing IP addresses as path-identiites (Re: #1047 Path field delimiters and syntax - status)

["Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In <431DD5E2.5040802@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> "Forrest J. Cavalier III" <forrest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>YES - IP addresses should be allowed as path-identity.
>NO - IP addresses should not be allowed as path-identity.

>I think these poll choices are poorly specified.

>I say MUST ACCEPT, MUST NOT generate.  Is that YES or NO?

If you said MUST accept, SHOULD NOT generqte, then that would certainly be
"YES". I grant you it would need some pretty weird circumstance to justify
breaking that SHOULD NOT, but the Real World is a weird place :-).

>And if it matters here, I think all diagnostics should start
>with ".keyword.", such as  "!.mismatch.10.0.0.1".

Yes, I made a proposal along those lines, except I put the keyword at the
end (because there is some existing practice for that). We can decide
after whether to follow that route (certainly the stuff in USEPRO covering
diagnostics needs a revision, and that might affect the precise syntax
too).

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5