You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I have looked at the examples provided that may showcase my question here?
Package version eg. v9, v10:
v10
Issue, Question or Enhancement:
There is no validator that satisfies <ip>:<port>. This is fully compatible with the net functions that accept a connection address, and most others as well.
hostname_port WILL match e.g. 203.0.113.1, but not 203.0.113.1:123 nor 2001:DB8::1, [2001:DB8::1], nor [2001:DB8::1]:123.
This violates RFC 1123 recommendation (see below), thus rather than creating a new validator, the regex pattern hostnameRegexStringRFC1123 should be directly fixed.
(...)
Whenever a user inputs the identity of an Internet host, it SHOULD
be possible to enter either (1) a host domain name or (2) an IP
address in dotted-decimal ("#.#.#.#") form. The host SHOULD check
the string syntactically for a dotted-decimal number before
looking it up in the Domain Name System.
(...)
(source, emphasis added)
I presume one of the updates to RFC 1123 also provides for IPv6 addresses in addition to IPv4 addresses, given 1123 was written in 1989, so these should also be allowed by the pattern.
Code sample, to showcase or reproduce:
N/A
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Package version eg. v9, v10:
v10
Issue, Question or Enhancement:
There is no validator that satisfies
<ip>:<port>
. This is fully compatible with thenet
functions that accept a connection address, and most others as well.hostname_port
WILL match e.g.203.0.113.1
, but not203.0.113.1:123
nor2001:DB8::1
,[2001:DB8::1]
, nor[2001:DB8::1]:123
.This violates RFC 1123 recommendation (see below), thus rather than creating a new validator, the regex pattern
hostnameRegexStringRFC1123
should be directly fixed.I presume one of the updates to RFC 1123 also provides for IPv6 addresses in addition to IPv4 addresses, given 1123 was written in 1989, so these should also be allowed by the pattern.
Code sample, to showcase or reproduce:
N/A
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: