Skip to content

Conversation

wbolster
Copy link
Contributor

@wbolster wbolster commented May 9, 2022

Avoid the phrasing ‘starting with ::FFFF/96’, which is confusing since
it seems to mix a prefix and a range. Instead, make it clear what the
actual range is, and refer to the relevant RFC.

Closes #87245.

Avoid the phrasing ‘starting with ::FFFF/96’, which is confusing since
it seems to mix a prefix and a range. Instead, make it clear what the
actual range is, and refer to the relevant RFC.

Closes python#87245.
@bedevere-bot bedevere-bot added docs Documentation in the Doc dir awaiting review labels May 9, 2022
@wbolster
Copy link
Contributor Author

wbolster commented May 9, 2022

(this can be labelled as skip-news)

Copy link
Contributor

@MaxwellDupre MaxwellDupre left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Checked all good. Even though RFC 4291 does not actually state precisely the address given.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
awaiting core review docs Documentation in the Doc dir skip news
Projects
Status: Todo
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

wrong IP address range given for ipv4_mapped
4 participants