[IPv6]Re: draft-carpenter-6man-zone-ui: Call for Adoption

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

On 04-Jun-24 09:29, David Schinazi wrote:
> Hi Brian,
> 
> If the text I proposed (or some variation thereof) were added to the draft, I would withdraw my opposition to adoption - because that would address my concerns. I wouldn't go as far as supporting adoption, because to me it's unclear what positive change to the world would come as a result of this draft; 

I don't have a list, but I have a distinct impression that link-locals with zone IDs are left out in the cold by a some implementers, because they do mean extra code, and a modified data model for how you represent IP addresses. (This was one of the first things I discovered when designing an implementation of RFC 8990.) Failure to handle them in a UI is the visible part of the iceberg.

> the Wireshark example above is valid, but they'll respond better to a code PR adding support than to an RFC telling them they should.

Sure, but the IETF as such can't do that.

> In other words, with the change I would stand out of the way but wouldn't help push this forward.

Thanks. It's in the XML file.

As a reminder for anyone with an opinion, the call for WG adoption closes in a couple of days.

     Brian

> 
> Cheers,
> David
> 
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 1:52 PM Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     Thanks David. Do I take it that with this addition promised for the next update, you'd be OK with adoption?
> 
>     Regards
>          Brian Carpenter
> 
>     On 04-Jun-24 06:38, David Schinazi wrote:
>      > A potential suggestion for wording would be to add an explicit sentence at the end of last paragraph of Section 3:
>      >
>      > "In this model, the zone identifier is considered independently of the IPv6 address itself, and thus in the case of a web browser would not be considered part of a URL. However, this does not in itself resolve the difficulties in considering the zone identifier as part of the HTTP origin model [RFC6454]. Therefore, this approach does not resolve the issue of how browsers should support link-local addresses, discussed further in [I-D.schinazi-httpbis-link-local-uri-bcp]. Because of this, the recommendations and normative statements in this document do not apply to web browsers."
>      >
>      > I do think this is needed, because otherwise this document fails to capture the research already performed by the browser community into whether it could implement the SHOULD in this draft. And that could lead to confusion during another round of feature requests using this document as motivation.
>      >
>      > David
>      >
>      >
>      > On Sun, Jun 2, 2024 at 2:47 PM Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>> wrote:
>      >
>      >     On 30-May-24 16:11, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
>      >      > I support adoption under the assumption that we will address browser
>      >      > concerns (as expressed by David Schinazi) to their satisfaction,
>      >
>      >     I'd be interested in specific suggestions for the wording, since
>      >     the text already says:
>      >
>      >     "This document obsoletes [RFC6874], which implementors
>      >     of web browsers have determined is impracticable to support..."
>      >
>      >     and
>      >
>      >     "Therefore, this approach
>      >     does not resolve the issue of how browsers should support link-local
>      >     addresses..."
>      >
>      >     So what else is needed? The whole specification is a BCP14 SHOULD,
>      >     which means that there
>      >     "may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
>      >     particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
>      >     carefully weighed before choosing a different course."
>      >     That is exactly what the browser implementors have already done.
>      >
>      >      > and
>      >      > that we see this as a first step to improving the situation with zone
>      >      > identifiers in general (as expressed e.g. by David Farner).
>      >
>      >     I agree. Personally I won't take the lead on 4007bis effort, but I'm
>      >     sure it's needed.
>      >
>      >      >
>      >      > The reason I support adoption is that if published, this will obsolete
>      >      > RFC 6874, which we know was wishful thinking.
>      >
>      >     Sadly, yes.
>      >
>      >            Brian
>      >
>      >      >
>      >      > Regards,   Martin.
>      >      >
>      >      > On 2024-05-28 00:55, Jen Linkova wrote:
>      >      >> This email starts an adoption call for the following document:
>      >      >>
>      >      >> Title : Entering IPv6 Zone Identifiers in User Interfaces
>      >      >> Authors : B. Carpenter, R. Hinden
>      >      >> Pages : 9
>      >      >> Date : 2024-03-31
>      >      >>
>      >      >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-carpenter-6man-zone-ui/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-carpenter-6man-zone-ui/> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-carpenter-6man-zone-ui/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-carpenter-6man-zone-ui/>>
>      >      >>
>      >      >> Please note that the draft in question is a continuation of the work
>      >      >> done in draft-ietf-6man-rfc6874bis which was adopted by this WG
>      >      >> previously.
>      >      >>
>      >      >> Substantive comments, statements of support for adopting this
>      >      >> document or objections to the adoption should be sent to the mailing
>      >      >> list.  Editorial suggestions can be sent to the authors.
>      >      >> .
>      >      >> This adoption call will end on June 12th 2024.
>      >      >>
>      >      >> Regards,
>      >      >>
>      >      >> Ole & Jen
>      >      >>
>      >      >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>      >      >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>      >      >> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>      >      >> Administrative Requests:
>      >      >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>      >      >
>      >      > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>      >      > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>      >      > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>      >      > Administrative Requests:
>      >      > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>      >     --------------------------------------------------------------------
>      >     IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>      > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>      >     Administrative Requests:
>      >     --------------------------------------------------------------------
>      >
>