John C Klensin wrote:
http://[10.0.0.6]/ anyone?
My bastard browser from hell eats http://[208.77.188.166]/
It's certainly no STD 66 URL. But it won't surprise me if
the URL-bis, charset-bis, net_2.0-bis, MIME-bis, XHTML-bis,
(etc. ad nauseam) effort styling itself as "HTML5" decrees
that this is as it should be based on current practice in
the browser industry.
That would be also the moment where I'd welcome a new TLD
"6]" just to prove a "subtle" technical point.
the IETF has a lot of trouble making clear decisions when
those sorts of politics start to intrude.
So far nobody disagreed with RFC 1123 erratum 1335. FWIW
that also eliminates "6]" from the list of potential TLDs.
Frank
--
Repost, apparently my first attempt didn't make it.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf