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

Andrew Cady <andy@cryptonomic.net> Tue, 06 July 2021 17:04 UTC

Return-Path: <andy@cryptonomic.net>
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 7A2F83A2E75 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 10:04:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 OoWmPKoDe4iE for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 10:04:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zukertort.childrenofmay.org (zukertort.childrenofmay.org [IPv6:2607:5300:201:3100::27b7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4379C3A2E74 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 10:04:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by zukertort.childrenofmay.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C3026F2E0A4; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 13:04:35 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2021 13:04:35 -0400
From: Andrew Cady <andy@cryptonomic.net>
To: 6MAN WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-6man-rfc6874bis-00.txt
Message-ID: <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <28125.1625590441@localhost>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/0ES8F_y3UgS2u0jYX4Cyc2MfW9o>
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 17:04:43 -0000

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.

I say we fix the broken standard to get it implemented!

> You can argue forever that they are wrong, and yet, here we are, ten years
> later, without anything working.

Firefox DID implement this.  Mozilla REMOVED the implementation.
Mozilla refuses to add the feature BECAUSE OF THIS STANDARD.

That's the whole reason this standard is being re-opened.  The browser
devs refuse to implement first.  They demand standards change first.