Subject: RFC5952 - actually a standard?!?

From: Karl Auer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 01:09:42 +1100

This is a silly question I know but I have to ask - is RFC 5952 "A
Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation" a standard that
people are expected to follow?

This from the abstract:

  "It is expected that the canonical format
   will be followed by humans and systems when representing IPv6
   addresses as text, but all implementations must accept and be able to
   handle any legitimate RFC 4291 format."

They are pretty much common sense (except for 4.2.2), and probably
represent common practice anyway, but I'd still like to know whether
people are consciously following these guidelines.

Regards, K.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karl Auer ([email-masked])
http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer

GPG fingerprint: AE1D 4868 6420 AD9A A698 5251 1699 7B78 4EEE 6017
Old fingerprint: DA41 51B1 1481 16E1 F7E2 B2E9 3007 14ED 5736 F687

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 09:28:56 +1300

Yes, according to the RFC index it is a Proposed Standard.

You can always check this at the RFC Editor site, e.g. from
the search page: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html

Whether people are following the standard is of course another
question entirely.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 2012-02-28 03:09, Karl Auer wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [email-masked]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------