Re: Reviews requested: draft-carpenter-6man-uri-zoneid-00.txt

Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> Tue, 07 February 2012 10:41 UTC

Return-Path: <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
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 B134721F87AD for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 02:41:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.039, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, 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 QiTEJ4eQSbTn for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 02:41:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D17B721F8767 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 02:41:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (demetrius4.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.49]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2974D20BFF; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 11:41:16 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius4.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QNn3Ff4ywXkx; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 11:41:16 +0100 (CET)
Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3B1A20BFE; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 11:41:15 +0100 (CET)
Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 9673E1CEE5B5; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 11:40:58 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 11:40:58 +0100
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Reviews requested: draft-carpenter-6man-uri-zoneid-00.txt
Message-ID: <20120207104058.GA23771@elstar.local>
Mail-Followup-To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <4F03B818.6000100@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4F03B818.6000100@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
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: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:41:17 -0000

Hi,

I have one question. The I-D restricts zoneid names to 15 characters:

      ZoneID = 1*15unreserved

This raises the question why limiting this to 15 characters. I know
that at my Linux and MacOS X boxes have this limit (and I would not be
surprised if BSDs do as well) but at the end it is a #define. So the
question is whether this limit should be hard coded in the URI format.
Looking at RFC 3986, I see

      reg-name    = *( unreserved / pct-encoded / sub-delims )
or
      port        = *DIGIT

and it appears there is no limit in the URI format on DNS names or
port numbers (even though today's DNS and transport protocols put
limits on those things).

/js

PS: I am asking this question because there is a MIB object ifName
    that has a limit of 255 ASCII characters (I assume basically due
    to SNMP constraints) and there is a YANG module in the making
    which currently allows 255 UTF-8 characters and I think it would
    be nice to think a moment about how these things fit together.

PS: RFC 3493 only says there is a constant IF_NAMESIZE - so the socket
    API does not really say what the interface name size limit really
    is.

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>