Re: [IPv6] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-6man-zone-ui-00.txt

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Toerless,

If you think you can rescue 6874bis, please take the editing token. I don't believe its possible. They say: When in a hole, stop digging.

Regards
    Brian Carpenter

On 20-Feb-24 16:43, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 06:59:09PM -0800, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>>> Has the Web browser development community come to a consensus that it is a
>>> Bad Idea (TM)? That seems to be the case, but asking the Web Browser
>>> community to help explain that consensus is also fair.
>>>
>>
>> See:
>> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27234#c2
>> https://github.com/whatwg/url/issues/392 (see especially the comments from Anne Van Kesteren, formerly Mozilla, now Apple)
> 
> Threre is a nice blog that has been collecting these URLs and more info:
> 
> https://ungleich.ch/u/blog/ipv6-link-local-support-in-browsers/
> 
> but now also a few years old.
> 
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-6man-rfc6874bis-02-artart-lc-thomson-2022-09-16/
> 
> What i am really missing from all this bickering is that nobody from that community is
> providing any suggestion of how this could in their opinion be done better. Because
> ultimately, it only boils down to not enough business case, go away.
> 
> For example, would something like a new URL schema be better ?
> 
>     route:en0:http://...
> 
> ?
> 
> I mean we have enough cases where one URL encodes another URL as a parameter,
> it can't be that difficult to explain the most simple desirable way to do this
> for the link selection problem.
> 
> 
>> Just like it is a bad idea for the IETF to dictate Zone Identifiers MUST be
>>> included in URIs, it is equally bad for the browser community to say, no
>>> way, no how, without a fairly detailed explanation.
>>>
>>
>> Well sort of. Generally, I think it's a good idea for implementors don't
>> want to do things, but fundamentally the IETF has a rough consensus
>> process, so at the end of the day if a big constituency doesn't want to do
>> something, then that suggests we don't have rough consensus, whether the
>> proponents of an idea find their reasons persuasive or not.
> 
> But the technical evaluation of the rough consensus should not only include
> counting of con-hums, but judging whether there is a community of
> interested users and technical reasons standing against it (such as better
> technical solution). The interested users are not the implementers of the browsers,
> but those who would use them (or any other application).
> 
> Cheers
>      Toerless
> 
>> -Ekr
>>
>>
>>
>>> Thanks.
>>> --
>>> ===============================================
>>> David Farmer               Email:[e-mail]
>>> Networking & Telecommunication Services
>>> Office of Information Technology
>>> University of Minnesota
>>> 2218 University Ave SE        Phone: [phone]
>>> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
>>> ===============================================
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
> 
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>