Inventing new approaches is out of scope. John's comments are correct
with respect to how to move this forward to Draft Standard.
John C Klensin wrote:
Beyond that, a decision on this is up to Tony, but I believe
that a request to _change_ the fundamental syntax used to
express different versions of IP and the associated literals is
out of scope. I believe that we can make syntax changes at this
point to clarify or correct what is there, but not to invent new
(to 2821/2822) approaches.
Of course, if interoperability reports (which are not part of
_my_ issue list) indicate that the syntax for IPv6 literals is
not supported by at least two independent implementations, that
syntax can be removed. But that would give us no standard
support for IPv6 literals at all, not an opportunity to invent a
new syntax at this time. Just IMO, of course.