Carsten, On 2012-03-06 12:22, Carsten Bormann wrote: > On Mar 6, 2012, at 00:00, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >> No, I think it's exactly *not* confused on this point. There's >> a distinction between the idealised URI and the produced URI; >> in the produced URI, "%25" stands for "%" in the idealised URI. > > Ah, so the ABNF is wrong
I don't believe so. The ABNF does not describe the produced (encoded) URI. I have read sections 2.2 and 2.4 of RFC 3986 several times before asserting this. Of course I could be wrong, but we are waiting for a review from [email protected] who will hopefully give a definitive answer. > and the (vague) text is meant as I read it first (it can be read in other > ways). Please indicate exactly which part of the text is ambiguous, and we'll change it. > > Replace > > IPv6addrz = IPv6address [ "%" ZoneID ] > > by > > IPv6addrz = IPv6address [ "%25" ZoneID ] No. In the encoded URI that would end up as %2525. That's exactly the trap that RFC 3986 warns against. > > >> We have no real choice but to use % since that was chosen years >> ago, and that means that the produced URI contains %25. > > I don't know that. You could use "percent" and that would work, too. We could use any unreserved symbol, but that would need translation from the RFC 4007 format. For example we could just use Z, as in http://[fe80::aZen1]. Or we could use ~: http://[fe80::a~en1]. Would that be less confusing? Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
