Closed silverwind closed 8 months ago
Probably not. I don't really validate the changes for correctness any more as I haven't had any use for this package in a decade. Ask the people who sent the PRs that went into 2.1.0 directly.
Yeah I don't care about it either, will switch to my own module for such normalization.
I don't think this is a bug because the RFC says not to shorten a single field:
4.2.2 Handling One 16-Bit 0 Field
The symbol "::" MUST NOT be used to shorten just one 16-bit 0 field. For example, the representation
2001:db8:0:1:1:1:1:1
is correct, but2001:db8::1:1:1:1:1
is not correct.
-- https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5952#section-4.2.2
Thanks, so this case of single 0
not being shortened is then working as intended.
BTW, the RFC is self-contradicting with its 'The use of the symbol "::" MUST be used to its maximum capability' statement, there is this open errata.
2.0.1
2.1.0
is it intentional? I've been using parse+toString to "normalize" an IPv6 (removing extra zeroes), but this change breaks it.