Message 200967 - Python tracker
Message200967
| Author | pitrou |
|---|---|
| Recipients | christian.heimes, jcea, leim, macfreek, ncoghlan, pitrou, pmoody, python-dev, santoso.wijaya, terry.reedy |
| Date | 2013-10-22.15:21:49 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1382455309.2.0.0904025486796.issue17400@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
Sorry for chiming in a bit late, but what's the rationale for including 100.64.0.0/10 in the "is_private" set, rather than *only* excluding it from the "is_global" set? The rationale for RFC 6598 is precisely that 100.64.0.0/10 is *not* private in the common sense, so it would deserve a different treatment in the ipaddress module as well. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2013-10-22 15:21:49 | pitrou | set | recipients: + pitrou, terry.reedy, jcea, ncoghlan, macfreek, christian.heimes, pmoody, santoso.wijaya, python-dev, leim |
| 2013-10-22 15:21:49 | pitrou | set | messageid: <1382455309.2.0.0904025486796.issue17400@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2013-10-22 15:21:49 | pitrou | link | issue17400 messages |
| 2013-10-22 15:21:49 | pitrou | create | |