Re: Fix IPV6 literal notation?
Ofer Inbar <cos@aaaaa.org> Mon, 28 December 2020 18:58 UTC
Return-Path: <cos@aaaaa.org>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE9F73A0D07 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Dec 2020 10:58:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7SvGp_khCEb0 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Dec 2020 10:58:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from miplet.aaaaa.org (miplet.aaaaa.org [104.131.172.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CCA43A0D05 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Dec 2020 10:58:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by miplet.aaaaa.org (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 30000406B6; Mon, 28 Dec 2020 13:57:54 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2020 13:57:54 -0500
From: Ofer Inbar <cos@aaaaa.org>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Fix IPV6 literal notation?
Message-ID: <20201228185754.GO2544@miplet.aaaaa.org>
References: <CAHBU6isQNkE0tmsn7v41Vptgf2OCTQ61gwMKDN4hmK4pBY-J9w@mail.gmail.com> <d244ee54-5f5c-b3e9-bc98-15d59e4ecbe9@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <d244ee54-5f5c-b3e9-bc98-15d59e4ecbe9@gmail.com>
Organization: American Association Against Acronym Abuse
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/-7VDdLVTmivW6cKNiMGCzNPeSwk>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2020 18:58:27 -0000
On Sun, Dec 27, 2020 at 12:25:33PM +1300, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote: > On 27-Dec-20 11:16, Tim Bray wrote: > > See https://twitter.com/dave_universetf/status/1342685822286360576 to which I heartily concur. IPV6 addresses are neither easy for humans to read, nor easy for software to parse. > > > > *If* someone has a better idea, there???s no good reason not to standardize it, the old approach would still work. Does anyone have a better idea? > > I have no idea if there's a proposal in that sequence of Twitter messages, but if there is, it should be written up as an I-D aimed at the 6man WG and discussed there. (Hence I have changed the IETF list to a Bcc: and added the 6man list in Cc:.) > It's clearly not a proposal for changing anything, because the majority of the weirdness that thread describes is address forms that are no longer actively in use, but still appear in various places - old threads, documents, databases, config files, archives, etc. Any change made to specifications now will only affect what forms people produce addresses in in the future, so it would have no effect on this. IPv6 address formats are reasonably specified for the present and future, and changing specs won't affect artifacts of the past. > I can say that this much is wrong: > > > Oh, and the leading zero debate also infects IPv6, to some extent! The specs tried to specify the textual representation of IPv6, but it failed to be complete. So it's unclear if 000001::00001.00002.00003.00004 is a valid IPv6 address > > It's quite clear that it is invalid. RFC4291 section 2.2 says: > > "1. The preferred form is x:x:x:x:x:x:x:x, where the 'x's are one to > four hexadecimal digits of the eight 16-bit pieces of the address." > That's not clear at all, since it doesn't address validity, only what is "preferred". So if there is one thing in that thread that might call for a change, it's to clarify that IPv6 addresses are expected not to pad with leading zeros beyond 4 hex characters, and that it is invalid to write them with more digits. I'd support that change, unless someone can show it's already very clearly spelled out somewhere. -- Cos
- Re: Fix IPV6 literal notation? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Fix IPV6 literal notation? Gyan Mishra
- Re: Fix IPV6 literal notation? Karl Auer
- Re: Fix IPV6 literal notation? Gyan Mishra
- Re: Fix IPV6 literal notation? Ofer Inbar
- Re: Fix IPV6 literal notation? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Fix IPV6 literal notation? Nick Hilliard
- Re: Fix IPV6 literal notation? Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Fix IPV6 literal notation? Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Fix IPV6 literal notation? tom petch
- Re: Fix IPV6 literal notation? Brian E Carpenter