Roger Moser wrote:
Meng Weng Wong wrote:
Should we change the spec to say that if the argument to an
"a" mechanism is obviously an IP address, we interpret it as
ip4 / ip6?
No. As has been brought up, though, the confusion probably exists because of
DNS A records. So, while people should still have RTFM-ed, I can understand
the mistake (you could perhaps even say that, for this reason, the choice of
"a" to represent a domain name, instead of its namesake A record, was
somewhat unfortunate).
I have no problem with allowing ip4/ip6 to mean ipv4/ipv6 (provided this is
clearly stated in the specs). Because, in that case, you are still referring
to the same type of argument; whereas "a" to mean "IP address" crosses an
untolerable boundary.
Is "a:2O9.223.237.l94" obviously an IP address?
To a machine, yes.
(Note: Letters "O" and "l" instead of digits "0" and "1").
That is, to a machine the above address is obviously NOT an IP address. :)
- Mark
System Administrator Asarian-host.org
---
"If you were supposed to understand it,
we wouldn't call it code." - FedEx