Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-sip-ipv6-abnf-fix (Essential correction for IPv6 ABNF and URI comparison in RFC3261) to Proposed Standard

On 4/26/10 18:02, Apr 26, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>
>> Writing leading zeroes for IPv4 address is not prevalent; by the
>> same token, representing ports in octal base is not prevalent either.
>> So I am inclined to let sleeping dogs lie.
>>
>> However, if the sponsoring AD or anyone monitoring this list feels
>> strongly, I don't mind adding a sentence or two to this effect in
>> the draft.
>
> I don't feel strongly about it. But now that you mention it, I think I 
> remember some question about octal ports coming up on one of the 
> mailing lists some time in the past.
>
> I also don't feel *strongly* about it. Lets see if anybody else has 
> something to say about it.

For what it's worth, typing "http://www.ietf.org:080/" into Firefox, 
Safari, and MSIE all takes me to the IETF's web page (interpreting "080" 
as 80, not 64). So, at least for HTTP URLs, there's a de facto 
interpretation of leading zeros in a port as padding, not an indication 
of octal.

/a
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is essentially closed and only used for finishing old business.
Use [email protected] for questions on how to develop a SIP implementation.
Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip.
Use [email protected] for issues related to maintenance of the core SIP specifications.