Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Message-ID: <gjoqmYK00WBwI9xulp@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Mon,  5 Jun 1995 16:44:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Gardiner Myers <jgm+@CMU.EDU>
To: drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject: Re: address syntax
In-Reply-To: <2205.802383999@munnari.OZ.AU>
References: <2205.802383999@munnari.OZ.AU>
Beak: is Not

Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU> writes:
> You're right, it is syntactically illegal now, and you can
> I suppose parse it however you like, but generating an "address
> error" message would be much more intelligent.

There are situations when generating any sort of error is simply not
possible.

> However, the IPng group will write a new RFC (when they get
> around to going through all of the RFCs - or at least all
> of the standards RFCs, and making changes to anything that
> refers to "IP address" or its syntax, anywhere).   When
> that happens that address (modulo the bogus characters) will
> be legal, and you'll have to parse it the way it is obviously
> intended.

If they try to get a document on the standards track which attempts to
permit ":" characters in rfc822 domains, I and others who deal with
mail systems will strenuously object on the grounds that the change
will break a significant portion of the installed base.

Breaking the installed base is simply unacceptable.  If the IPng wants
to use an address syntax that cannot be used in RFC 822 addresses, I
consider that their business.

-- 
_.John G. Myers		Internet: jgm+@CMU.EDU
			LoseNet:  ...!seismo!ihnp4!wiscvm.wisc.edu!give!up