Morteza Ansari wrote:Yes, it was approved as proposed standard. I didn't bring it up before either because it was still a draft, but now that we are delayed and that draft is going to be an RFC soon...
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> Now that we are doing more work on the c-api, I think we should address
> the IPv6 address issue in section 11.1 as well:
>
> hostname Contains a space-separated list of hostnames or dotted strings
> representing the IP address of hosts running an LDAP server to
> connect to. Each hostname in the list MAY include a port number
> which is separated from the host itself with a colon (:) char-
> acter. The hosts will be tried in the order listed, stopping
> with the first one to which a successful connection is made.
>
> Note: A suitable representation for including a literal IPv6[10]
> address in the hostname parameter is desired, but has not yet been
> determined or implemented in practice.
>
> A somewhat similar draft (draft-ietf-ipngwg-url-literal-04.txt) that
> addresses the same issue for URL's was recently approved by IESG, and I
> think we should adopt the same format for representing IPv6 addresses in
> "hostname". It essentially states that literal IPv6 addresses should be
> enclosed in '[' and ']'. An example of this in our case would be:
>
> hostname = "mirage:7653 129.178.2.54 [1080:0:0:0:8:800:200C:4171]:2353"
>
> I suggest we change our definition of hostname to include IPv6 addresses
> along with the optional port number as specified in above draft.
> Comments?I didn't realize that the draft you mention had been approved by the
IESG. I assume it is Standards Track? If so, there is no reason not to
Morteza,