----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian E Carpenter" <[email protected]> To: "Bob Hinden" <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; "Dave Thaler" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 5:56 PM Subject: Re: 6MAN WG [second] Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-01.txt
> I'd be happy with that, or a small appendix. Dave, is it documented anywhere? > Non-normative Appendix, Please. Tom Petch > Regards > Brian > > On 2012-07-06 15:00, Bob Hinden wrote: > > With my co-author hat on, would it help to include a description of what IE supports in Section 3. Web Browsers? > > > > Bob > > > > > > On Jul 6, 2012, at 6:01 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > > >> Dave, > >> > >> 1) FYI, the deadline we gave the URI list to comment on this has just > >> passed, with only one (positive) reply. > >> > >> 2) It's for the WG Chairs to say if they want another version > >> in view of your comments. > >> > >> 3) I don't see how the % format is currently legal. There's > >> no provision for any characters after the IPv6 address, whether > >> percent-encoded or not. We heard of browsers that previously > >> allowed full RFC 4007 syntax (% *not* treated as an escape) > >> but this is the first I've heard of IE allowing a zone index > >> at all. > >> > >> Regards > >> Brian > >> > >> On 2012-07-06 02:28, Dave Thaler wrote: > >>> I know it's after the designated end of WGLC, but here's my feedback... > >>> > >>> The document appears to call out existing practice in several places, such as in section 1: > >>>> Some versions of some browsers accept the RFC 4007 syntax for scoped > >>>> IPv6 addresses embedded in URIs, i.e., they have been coded to > >>>> interpret the "%" sign according to RFC 4007 instead of RFC 3986. > >>> and in Appendix A point 1: > >>>> Advantage: works today. > >>> However, it's missing discussion of other alternatives already in common practice. > >>> For example alternative 3 (escaping the escape character as allowed by RFC 3986) has: > >>>> Advantage: allows use of browser. > >>>> > >>>> Disadvantage: ugly and confusing, doesn't allow simple cut and > >>>> paste. > >>> The disadvantage is certainly true. However the main advantage are notably > >>> lacking, which is that it's already in common practice in many places (to the extent > >>> that using a zone id at all is common practice anyway). > >>> > >>> You'll see at > >>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa385325(v=vs.85 ).aspx > >>> that alternative 3 is what is supported in IE7 and above, and the APIs are generally > >>> available to Windows applications (i.e. not just IE7). > >>> > >>> The document does not state whether the existing legal use is suddenly > >>> declared to be illegal, or just another legal way of doing the same thing. > >>> > >>> If you're telling existing applications and OS's that use alternative 3 that they > >>> have to change, that doesn't sound like a good thing. That's because many apps > >>> want to be OS-version-independent and use URI parsing libraries provided by > >>> the OS. We don't want apps to code their own URI parsing (it's very easy to > >>> get wrong, especially when you add various internationalization issues). > >>> As a result, apps will tend to code to the lowest common denominator of > >>> OS's they want to work on. That means I expect to see apps coding to > >>> alternative 3 for the foreseeable future. When they don't use them in > >>> edit boxes, the disadvantage of not being able to cut and paste is not a > >>> real disadvantage. > >>> > >>> Personally I don't have an issue with allowing both formats if the WG feels > >>> strongly that a cut-and-paste-friendly format is needed in addition to > >>> what's existing practice, though having two does affect the rules for > >>> comparison (see draft-iab-identifier-comparison section 3.1.2) but not > >>> noticeably. > >>> > >>> Finally, the stated disadvantage of alternative 3 is only a disadvantage if the > >>> specified scheme in section 2 *does* allow cut-and-paste. For that to > >>> happen, it means the zone id separator has to work outside the context of > >>> URIs. That is, section 2 says: > >>>> Thus, the scoped address fe80::a%en1 would appear in a URI as > >>>> http://[fe80::a-en1]. > >>> To support cut-and-paste, that means that > >>> "ping fe80::a-en1" > >>> needs to work. But this document is titled > >>> " Representing IPv6 Zone Identifiers in Uniform Resource Identifiers" > >>> and similarly the abstract limits its scope to URIs. > >>> > >>> Hence section 2 is in contradiction with the analysis of alternative 3. > >>> The document already says it "updates 4007" so it seems that what's > >>> lacking is a section specifically updating RFC 4007 section 11 which would > >>> declare that both '%' and '-' are acceptable separators in the textual > >>> representation. > >>> > >>> -Dave > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > >>>> Ole Trøan > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 5:18 AM > >>>> To: [email protected] Mailing List > >>>> Cc: [email protected] Chairs; draft-ietf-6man-uri- > >>>> [email protected] > >>>> Subject: 6MAN WG [second] Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-01.txt > >>>> > >>>> All, > >>>> > >>>> This message starts a one-week 6MAN Working Group Last Call on advancing: > >>>> Title : Representing IPv6 Zone Identifiers in Uniform > >>>> Resource Identifiers > >>>> Author(s) : Brian Carpenter > >>>> Robert M. Hinden > >>>> Filename : draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-01.txt > >>>> Pages : 9 > >>>> Date : 2012-05-29 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> as a Proposed Standard. Substantive comments should be directed to the > >>>> mailing list or the co-chairs. Editorial suggestions can be sent to the authors. > >>>> This last call will end on June 20, 2012. > >>>> Regards, > >>>> Bob, & Ole > >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------- - > >>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > >>>> [email protected] > >>>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------- - > >>> > >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > >>> [email protected] > >>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [email protected] > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
