Re: 6MAN WG [second] Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-01.txt

Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> Fri, 06 July 2012 14:00 UTC

Return-Path: <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
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 1A5B421F86B6 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 07:00:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Pxf7HmBVCcSP for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 07:00:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2146D21F86B4 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 07:00:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obbwc20 with SMTP id wc20so16948485obb.31 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 06 Jul 2012 07:00:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=PZDH57s5t2+FY5++juqdX4ID9Spaiw9G3p7iDrdAIiU=; b=nMo25fYkkCGQDuU/UQFe3t6RUqWhtK87xhb3YSw6YV1fMzPfX8chU7ZQ91GiKCigB6 IgbDV7I+Nj5C+DGgdKNVzXfUxNqBIdOnKD7/X02htsPGm1U+IirkrrKZ1lHC4Ou6suNC YCZtA88xVyYgVyDRiY5ei0PSde0C7ccS6xTNKYHgYVlSq8i5oKonfLFLGXofBPd+ZlYT fbCXncCG+F2gAeXJ3z7Yi27bUgtV9txsPxrC2sEJll6DtxvR7Tbh6aAJi+bwRGRFNo8/ yBpOnevpiOfIQbOAe3tP3DyHhEjR8XmvfZbtE9e0uBDCOFMPTfBVPKd9NvB6PcFeCYIQ U32A==
Received: by 10.182.14.36 with SMTP id m4mr26106550obc.71.1341583232323; Fri, 06 Jul 2012 07:00:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.242.26.102] (mbc0f36d0.tmodns.net. [208.54.15.188]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id g8sm3143474obz.16.2012.07.06.07.00.29 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 06 Jul 2012 07:00:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: 6MAN WG [second] Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-01.txt
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FF6E199.5020007@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 07:00:27 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F9D7BDB7-D90F-4FCB-A31F-6BD9F359641D@gmail.com>
References: <4CD4908C-3524-45BC-BA6F-1A595E91FFD9@employees.org> <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B68F527@TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <4FF6E199.5020007@gmail.com>
To: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: "6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org Chairs" <6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid@tools.ietf.org, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, "ipv6@ietf.org Mailing List" <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 14:00:17 -0000

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: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>>> Ole Trøan
>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 5:18 AM
>>> To: ipv6@ietf.org Mailing List
>>> Cc: 6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org Chairs; draft-ietf-6man-uri-
>>> zoneid@tools.ietf.org
>>> 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
>>> ipv6@ietf.org
>>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> 
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> ipv6@ietf.org
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------