Re: [IPv6] [v6ops] IPv6 link-local and URLs @ IETF119

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

On 20-Mar-24 10:37, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 10:26:49AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>>> Yeah, I expect we'll go over all this on Thursday.  I'll change the
>>>> state on the previous document to make it clear that it's no longer in
>>>> the IESG queue, clearing the way for these other approaches.
>>>
>>> Why again is it not in the IESG queue ? Is this not something that 6MAN would have to agree upon,
>>> aka: stop pursuing the document, stop discussing Murrays DISCUSS ?
>>
>> The IESG is at liberty to return a document to a WG when it has no chance of getting approved in its present form.
> 
> Ok. Did this happen ? No IESG member beside Murray had a discuss, 

Rob Wilton also holds a DISCUSS. Francesca Palombini supported Murray's DISCUSS.

> and it would be a sad state of
> affairs if now all of a sudden, the rest of the IESG would buy into his business argument.

I'll leave Murray to respond, but the arguments from the W3C side are not really business related. Please read David Schinazi's draft, especially https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-schinazi-httpbis-link-local-uri-bcp-03.html#handling .

I agree that "we won't implement" in itself is not an argument the IETF should weight too heavily.
  
> Also the origin argument AFAIK does not apply to all use of URL for which rfc6874(bis) applies.
> And the origin problems also exist for other cases (e.g.: non-zoned IPv4/IPv6 link local addresses),
> and browsers also simply live with those problems.

Sure, and the browser community is very concerned about this. Hence https://wicg.github.io/private-network-access/

    Brian

> 
> Cheers
>      Toerless
> 
>>      Brian
>>
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>       Toerless
>>>> Murray Kucherawy has offered to try to drop in for this discussion, if
>>>> he can step away from his working group when the topic comes up.