[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
query re IPv6 URL format
- Subject: query re IPv6 URL format
- From: [email protected] (Brian E Carpenter)
- Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 11:39:27 +0100
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]> from "Francis Dupont" at Oct 14, 97 09:08:33 pm
I've had that discussion with the URL syntax authors. They are
unanimous that the colons are not parseable in practice.
>- Francis Dupont said:
> In your previous mail you wrote:
> >If that was the decision then we need to codify it and tell
> >the world. I could live with it, if the URL parsers can handle
> >it. I'll check that with the URL guys.
> Maybe I am missing something, but...
> The IPv4 syntax is:
> It would seem to me that while
> has multiple ":"'s in it, given left to right parsing, I don't see anything
> ambiguous. The first thing after the "//" is either a DNS name, IPv4
> address, or an IPv6 address. If the current parsers can distinguish
> between "hursley.ibm.com" and "111.222.333.444", both of which use dots as
> separators, then could they also deal with IPv6 addresses with colons?
> => it is not true (just look at the RFC 1738 or for instance lynx
> documentation). According to the last one, URLs can be:
> telnet://user:[email protected]:port
> ^ ^
> ftp://username:[email protected]:port/path;type=[D,I, or A]
> ^ ^
> And dont' forget we need the same thing for RFC 821/822, X11, ...
> Why can't the parsers learn how to do this? They need to be changed to
> handle IPv6 addresses anyway.
> => it is very easy and as far as I know enough to support DNS names
> (and the terrible RES_USE_INET6 stuff). Personally I think the right
> thing to do is to kill literals (IPv4 literals too)!
> [email protected]
> PS: the URL format http://host:port/... is very common and perhaps
> will become more common if ISPs put a bad priority to the 80 TCP port (:-).