Original Message -
From: "Juergen Schoenwaelder"
To: "Brian E Carpenter" ; "Benoit Claise"
Cc: "t.petch" ; "6man"
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 9:43 AM
> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 07:56:43AM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > On 2012-05-10 11:39, t.petch wrote:
> > > Original Message -
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 07:56:43AM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 2012-05-10 11:39, t.petch wrote:
> > Original Message -
> > From: "Juergen Schoenwaelder"
> > To: "Brian E Carpenter"
> > Cc: "6man"
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 7:34 PM
> >> On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 03:33:07PM +
On 2012-05-10 11:39, t.petch wrote:
> Original Message -
> From: "Juergen Schoenwaelder"
> To: "Brian E Carpenter"
> Cc: "6man"
> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 7:34 PM
>> On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 03:33:07PM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> I'm not exactly seeing overwhelming consensus,
Original Message -
From: "Juergen Schoenwaelder"
To: "Brian E Carpenter"
Cc: "6man"
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 7:34 PM
> On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 03:33:07PM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > I'm not exactly seeing overwhelming consensus, but the loudest
> > virtual hum was for
> >
>
On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 03:33:07PM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> I'm not exactly seeing overwhelming consensus, but the loudest
> virtual hum was for
>
>http://[fe80::a-en1]
>
> Advantage: allows use of browser.
> Disadvantage: doesn't allow simple cut and paste.
>
> There was a suggesti
On 2012-05-08 15:35, Ole Trøan wrote:
1) Leave the problem unsolved.
This would mean that per-interface diagnostics would still have to be
performed using ping or ping6
ping fe80::a%en1
Advantage: works today.
Disadvantage: less convenient than usi
On May 8, 2012, at 16:33, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> http://[fe80::a-en1]
Of the proposals that require changing RFC 3986, this is clearly the best one.
(My personal favorite is still hijacking IPvFuture, as in
http://[v6.fe80::a-en1], but I can understand when people don't like that.)
Grüße
>>> 1) Leave the problem unsolved.
>>>
>>> This would mean that per-interface diagnostics would still have to be
>>> performed using ping or ping6
>>>
>>> ping fe80::a%en1
>>>
>>> Advantage: works today.
>>>
>>> Disadvantage: less convenient than using a browswer.
>>>
>>> 2) Escaping the esca
I'm not exactly seeing overwhelming consensus, but the loudest
virtual hum was for
http://[fe80::a-en1]
Advantage: allows use of browser.
Disadvantage: doesn't allow simple cut and paste.
There was a suggestion to encourage a fix to ping (and traceroute?) to
allow the "-" separator, and we mu
On 2012-05-04 11:39, Ole Trøan wrote:
>> 1) Leave the problem unsolved.
>>
>> This would mean that per-interface diagnostics would still have to be
>> performed using ping or ping6
>>
>> ping fe80::a%en1
>>
>> Advantage: works today.
>>
>> Disadvantage: less convenient than using a browswer.
>>
>
Juergen, that is a defect in RFC 4007, which left the character set
undefined. We can't get that toothpaste back in the tube, but by using
the ABNF construct
ZoneID = 1*( unreserved / pct-encoded )
we can get round these cases; we can't fix them I'm afraid.
Regards
Brian
On 2012-05-04 15:10,
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 09:54:36AM -0400, Simon Perreault wrote:
> > On 2012-05-04 09:44, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > >On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 08:29:11AM -0500, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote:
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 09:54:36AM -0400, Simon Perreault wrote:
> On 2012-05-04 09:44, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> >On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 08:29:11AM -0500, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote:
> >>+1 for option 3 with hyphen.
> >>
> >>I like to be able to read the URI without having to put my glasses
Original Message -
From: "Simon Perreault"
To:
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: Options for draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid
> On 2012-05-04 09:44, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> > On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 08:29:11AM -0500, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote:
&
On 2012-05-04 09:44, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 08:29:11AM -0500, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote:
+1 for option 3 with hyphen.
I like to be able to read the URI without having to put my glasses on.
Interface names can contain other fancy characters and hence this one
wil
On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 08:29:11AM -0500, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote:
> +1 for option 3 with hyphen.
>
> I like to be able to read the URI without having to put my glasses on.
Interface names can contain other fancy characters and hence this one
will simply not work in the general case.
/js
--
+1 for option 3 with hyphen.
I like to be able to read the URI without having to put my glasses on.
Cheers,
Rajiv
Sent from my Phone
On May 4, 2012, at 3:50 AM, "t.petch" wrote:
> Brian
>
> To me, Option 3 is the clear, right way to go.
>
> Percent escaping is the purist answer, fine for U
> 1) Leave the problem unsolved.
>
> This would mean that per-interface diagnostics would still have to be
> performed using ping or ping6
>
> ping fe80::a%en1
>
> Advantage: works today.
>
> Disadvantage: less convenient than using a browswer.
>
> 2) Escaping the escape character as allowed
Brian
To me, Option 3 is the clear, right way to go.
Percent escaping is the purist answer, fine for URI experts who deal with
percent escaping all the time. Most of the world is completely comfortable with
URIs as long as they look like
www.example.com/user/sample.html
Some get confused even by
Kerry,
On 2012-04-29 23:50, Kerry Lynn wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 3:54 AM, Brian E Carpenter <
> brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> In the IETF 83 discussion of draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-00,
>> there was no clear consensus on the approach to pursue. In fact,
>> almost the s
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 3:54 AM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In the IETF 83 discussion of draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-00,
> there was no clear consensus on the approach to pursue. In fact,
> almost the same discussion occurred around draft-fenner-literal-zone
>
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 08:54:16AM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In the IETF 83 discussion of draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-00,
> there was no clear consensus on the approach to pursue. In fact,
> almost the same discussion occurred around draft-fenner-literal-zone
> several years ago, bu
Hi,
In the IETF 83 discussion of draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-00,
there was no clear consensus on the approach to pursue. In fact,
almost the same discussion occurred around draft-fenner-literal-zone
several years ago, but at that time the topic was simply dropped.
This note summarises the main opt
23 matches
Mail list logo
