>...I didn't understand the proposal >assumed additional requirements for URL/URI parsers, so I didn't >understand its usefulness. **If we can allow that**, I see this can >be useful, while it should be minor usage ...
Certainly, it's envisioned to be a small niche, which is why I am not ready to push too hard on it. >..."never force >applications to do any additional work to deal with scopes". I think the push against additional work was really about addresses that look (more or less) the same requiring different handling, e.g., an application would have to know that fec0::1 needed a zone ID but 2002::1 did not. Since my proposal uses an explicitly different syntax, and all addresses expressed using this syntax require the zone ID, I *think* that argument doesn't apply. Bill -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------