Your suggested changes seem fine to me. I certainly don't think we should recall the draft from the RFC Editor. If the changes can be made as editorial updates, that's fine. If not, they can simply be kept for the next version.
I'm really sorry I didn't spot this during the Last Call.
Brian
JINMEI Tatuya wrote:
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 10:05:33 +0200, Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
P.S. I'm quite aware that this has already passed the IESG, but it will obviously have to be updated one day, so please keep these comments in a safe place.
I interpret this to mean that you are not requiring to revise the draft addressing your comments. But it seems we can reflect some of your points during the editorial work with the RFC editor.
If my understanding is NOT correct, please say so explicitly.
Now going to the comments:
However, the typed URL is often sent on the wire, and it would cause confusion if an application did not strip the <zone_id> portion before sending. Note that the applications should not need to care about which kind of addresses they're using, much less parse or strip out the <zone_id> portion of the address. Also, the format for non-global addresses might conflict with the URI syntax [13], since the syntax defines the delimiter character (`%') as the escape character.
[13] is RFC 2396, which will be obsoleted by draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis
Actually there is no problem with the conflict, except that in a URI, a percent sign has to be percent-encoded as %25. So zone_id 1 would be represented in a URI as %251.
Yes, but the point is that the escaped format would not be able to be passed to, e.g., getaddrinfo() directly. It would decrease the benefit of the extended format with the "%" delimiter. Also, we then could not simply copy-n-paste a literal IPv6 address with a zone identifier from output of some other command. It would also decrease the benefit of the format.
So, for example, does it help to revise this paragraph as follows? (i.e., adding several sentences at the end of the paragraph)
However, the typed URL is often sent on the wire, and it would cause confusion if an application did not strip the <zone_id> portion before sending. Note that the applications should not need to care about which kind of addresses they're using, much less parse or strip out the <zone_id> portion of the address. Also, the format for non-global addresses might conflict with the URI syntax [13], since the syntax defines the delimiter character (`%') as the escape character. This conflict would require, for example, that the <zone_id> part for zone 1 with the delimiter be represented as '%251'. But it also means that we could not simply copy a non-escaped format from other sources as input to the URI parser. Additionally, if the URI parser does not convert the escaped format before passing it to a name-to-address library, the conversion will fail. All these issues would decrease the benefit of the textual representation described in this section.
Hence, this document does not specify how the format for non-global addresses should be combined with the preferred format for literal IPv6 addresses.
I'd want a URI syntax expert to check, but I'm not sure that there is any problem with %251, %252, etc. It's ugly, but using literal addresses is always ugly. The real question is whether there would ever be any *need* to specify a zone_id in a URI.
Regarding %251 or %252, see above.
Regarding the "real question", I'd say it should at least be rare, so we could simply remove the URI issues if it can be a blocking problem. But I can imagine some usage similar to the example shown in Section 11.4, considering many today's leaf routers have web interface, and thus I believe providing some notes might help.
As for the conflict issue with the URI format, it
would be better to wait until the relationship between the preferred
format and the URI syntax is clarified.
It is clarified by draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis.
...In fact, the preferred
format for IPv6 literal addresses itself has the same kind of
conflict.
No, it's a very different conflict. % is a global escape character in URIs, which is why it has to be escaped itself as %25. The colons in IPv6 addresses are simply delimiters. I think this sentence is unnecessary.
I would say those were the same problem before the clarification of rfc2396bis. But I understand that the conflict with colons is not an issue any more with rfc2396bis.
So, perhaps we can just simply this paragraph to:
Hence, this document does not specify how the format for non-global addresses should be combined with the preferred format for literal IPv6 addresses. In any case, it is recommended to use an FQDN instead of a literal IPv6 address in a URL, whenever an FQDN is available.
Does this make sense to you?
JINMEI, Tatuya Communication Platform Lab. Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
