Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id UAA22240; Mon, 5 Jun 1995 20:22:25 -0400 X-Resent-To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU ; Mon, 5 Jun 1995 20:22:24 EDT Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU Received: from munnari.oz.au by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id UAA22233; Mon, 5 Jun 1995 20:22:21 -0400 Received: from mundamutti.cs.mu.OZ.AU by munnari.oz.au with SMTP (5.83--+1.3.1+0.50) id AA15089; Tue, 6 Jun 1995 10:21:24 +1000 (from kre@munnari.OZ.AU) To: Eric Thomas Cc: John Gardiner Myers , drums@CS.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: address syntax In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 06 Jun 1995 00:29:09 +0200." Date: Tue, 06 Jun 1995 10:21:19 +1000 Message-Id: <2284.802398079@munnari.OZ.AU> From: Robert Elz Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 00:29:09 +0200 From: Eric Thomas >It seems that 822 allows ':' inside domain literals [kre] If you want my opinion, it was an oversight. Maybe. It could have also been recognising that IPv4 may not be the only kind of transport address that would be needed and deliberately allowing for that. In any case, as it is permitted, IPv6 can happily use it, and any 822 code that "breaks" was broken already. Like: joe@abc.[192.36.125.6].def This one was more probably an oversight - but might have been simply a different idea on how domain type addresses would be used (822 & 821 appeared before the DNS after all). In any case, deleting that abomination is certainly something worth doing. kre