Kerry,
On 2013-05-24, at 2:51 PM, Kerry Lynn <[email protected]> wrote:
> ...
> Just so we're clear, I assume this does NOT work today with link-local IPv6
> addresses (because no print client yet
> constructs a Host URI with link-local address and zoneID according to RFC
> 6874)? And you're saying that RFC 6874
> does not improve on the current situation?
Correct on both counts.
What we have been advising printer vendors to do for the last 8 years is to
support the IPvFuture address syntax, based on some discussions I had 8 years
ago with one of the HTTP WG members at the time (and I apologize for not having
more details, I lost my email archives recently and haven't been able to
recover the files yet...) The "recommended" syntax at the time was:
scheme://[v1.fe80::xxxx:...:xxxx+zoneid]:port/path
Support for that format got added to CUPS back in 2005, with most current
printers supporting it as well. By printer support, I mean they use the
address as-is when returning URIs, they don't actually care about the zoneid...
I've been doing some testing locally and it seems that some OS
libraries/frameworks work with the new address format, some with the old
IPvFuture format, but so far none work with both.
Another data point: none of the web browsers I've tested allow link-local IPv6
addresses, period. Some don't understand the IPvFuture or RFC 6874 formats,
some decide you meant to search for the IPv6 address (which produces some
interesting search results...)
I still need to do more testing with printers to see what they do with RFC 6874
URIs once the print client (CUPS) is updated. I suspect it will be a mixed
result...
_________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
