Re: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-6man-rfc6874bis-00.txt

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 06 July 2021 18:45 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B6B23A3183 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 11:45:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9gDrCGvCEeXl for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 11:45:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B8EE13A315B for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 11:45:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C447638A40; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 14:48:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id EcXNpjkW4CTI; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 14:48:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D55738A3C; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 14:48:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 834AE2B3; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 14:45:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Andrew Cady <andy@cryptonomic.net>, 6MAN WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-6man-rfc6874bis-00.txt
In-Reply-To: <20210706170435.2dfvdx2aynpqxwl6@zukertort.childrenofmay.org>
References: <162545101341.19246.8566193740265797873@ietfa.amsl.com> <95a7dbe5-e0a3-4676-9dcc-005ff53725e0@gmail.com> <CA+9kkMD3iSgo-KMM5Ed8bVnVCu_G3f2kB6zHKoOx2ta=x8QucA@mail.gmail.com> <CANMZLAbmdWHDRBPpHgy_e4_0-WUVW2gjnbXWwu2pF_xi-S0vWQ@mail.gmail.com> <87a6n13y0j.fsf@ungleich.ch> <CA+9kkMBx4F0FGZasdk11ogyCOwQZecAEkO4JbECDr4osySN-4w@mail.gmail.com> <20210706152527.j47rcxas5nwz5d63@zukertort.childrenofmay.org> <CA+9kkMDGQxFD6v=NJaDXRdRJ3jaRriTnhnyKeK3cG=jaosQhBQ@mail.gmail.com> <20210706161859.2wdw7mkeg4b7nd66@zukertort.childrenofmay.org> <28125.1625590441@localhost> <20210706170435.2dfvdx2aynpqxwl6@zukertort.childrenofmay.org>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2021 14:45:41 -0400
Message-ID: <24972.1625597141@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/-B8Ax6wi_mivBpggo9wZH54nf14>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2021 18:46:00 -0000

Andrew Cady <andy@cryptonomic.net> wrote:
    > On Tue, Jul 06, 2021 at 12:54:01PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
    >>
    >> Andrew Cady <andy@cryptonomic.net> wrote:
    >> > On Tue, Jul 06, 2021 at 05:00:04PM +0100, Ted Hardie wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> My apologies; it appears that I didn't get my intent across.
    >> >> Let me try to rephrase.  Because of a collision between the
    >> >> defined zone-id scope-id separator and the URI syntax
    >>
    >> > I've already explained to this list, last week, why there is
    >> > no collision.  So it appears to me, not that I've failed to
    >> > understand your intent, but that you didn't even read that. :(
    >>
    >> > To be fair, it was long.  Today I reiterate everything.
    >>
    >> > There is no such collision because IPv6-Literal is not a
    >> > percent-decoded data component.  Percent-decoding is done
    >> > AFTER parsing into components, only some of which are encoded
    >> > like that.  It's done on OTHER COMPONENTS but not done on the
    >> > component where you say it conflicts.
    >>
    >> So why do the browser implementers have such difficulties with
    >> processing this?  Running code wins.

    > There is no difficulty implementing it the way that I say to do it!

    > The difficulty (or rather, refusal) is implementing it the broken way
    > that the standard says to do.

Well, each time I read your (multiple) posts, I see you describing what I
think that the standard already says.  Obviously, I'm wrong.

You also seem to be disagreeing with Brian's text, which is why I'm confused.
Maybe you could just make a pull request to Brian's document?

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide