Brian and Bob already heard this but wanted list discussion before making any changes to the doc, so posting publically...
Section 3 states: > For example: > > http://[fe80::a%en1] > > It seems that modern browsers can be adapted to parse this because it > is inside of the "[" "]"'s. The sentence above isn't true (claim is way too broad). The counter example is that IE is a modern browser. It cannot "be adapted" to treat http://[fe80::1%251]/ as fe80::1%251 without breaking backwards compatibility with all the code that treats it as fe80::1%1. > This would permit the output of commands > like ping6 -w ff02::1%en1 to be "cut and pasted" into a browser > address bar. The sentence above is misleading, because the use of the "-" syntax specified by this draft would already permit the output of commands like ping6 -w ff02::1-en1 to be "cut and pasted" into a browser address bar. The "would permit" implies that it wouldn't otherwise permit, which is not true with draft -02. > Consequently this document recommends that browsers > support this syntax in addition to the formal URI syntax defined > above. The above sentence is harmful. Consider http://[fe80::1%251]/ Is the embedded address fe80::1%1 or fe80::1%251 ? In Firefox apparently it's the latter, and in IE it's the former. I see no reason to "recommend" one over the other, especially given that the market share (i.e. how commonly deployed) would be in favor of fe80::1%1 so you can't take that as an argument for the latter. Because it's completely unpredictable without having browser-specific knowledge which I think is inappropriate here, I don't think it should recommend either one. Making a recommendation in this document will just increase the likelihood of interoperability problems as people start passing URIs like "http://[fe80::1%251]/"; into APIs and files without knowing how it'll be interpreted by the broad base of already deployed apps and libraries. We don't want to make the situation worse, and this sort of recommendation just makes the current bad situation worse. -Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Brian E Carpenter > Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 5:30 AM > To: 6man > Subject: [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-02.txt] > > This version includes changes for the recent comments from Dave Thaler. > It needs a check by the WG that we still have consensus. > > We did not delete one sentence in section 3 that Dave objects to: > "Consequently this document recommends that browsers support this > syntax in addition to the formal URI syntax defined above." > > The URI list raised no objection to the formal syntax change. > > Brian + Bob (as author) > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-02.txt > Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 05:23:52 -0700 > From: internet-dra...@ietf.org > To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org > CC: ipv6@ietf.org > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : Representing IPv6 Zone Identifiers in Address > Literals and > Uniform Resource Identifiers > Author(s) : Brian Carpenter > Robert M. Hinden > Filename : draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-02.txt > Pages : 10 > Date : 2012-07-11 > > Abstract: > This document describes how the Zone Identifier of an IPv6 scoped > address can be represented in a a literal IPv6 address and in a > Uniform Resource Identifier that includes such a literal address. It > updates RFC 3986 and RFC 4007 accordingly. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-02 > > A diff from previous version is available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-02 > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
