Re: [IPv6] [Last-Call] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc6874bis-02

On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 6:31 PM Brian E Carpenter <
[email protected]> wrote:

> I 100% fail to understand what you mean.
>
> http://[fe80::abcd-eth0] won't parse today any better than http://[fe80::abcd%eth0].
> Neither of them respects the current grammar. Whatever we do here extends
> the grammar.
>

No. You can leave some things opaque. For example, your draft even covers
this in Section 4 of Appendix A:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-rfc6874bis#appendix-A

It says "Simply use the 'IPvFuture' syntax left open in RFC 3986".

You could do that, right? But maybe we have an accidental production here.
That's fine too. Just say it, if that's the case.

thanks,
Rob

_______________________________________________
art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art