Re: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-6man-rfc6874bis-00.txt

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 06 July 2021 16:54 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 3444F3A2E0D for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 09:54:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iDGfQ6RlhTcD for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 09:54:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8AF33A2E23 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 09:54:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B187B38A21; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 12:56:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id bQ-edJuI37Fr; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 12:56:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB30A38994; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 12:56:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61A8A2B3; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 12:54:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Andrew Cady <andy@cryptonomic.net>, 6MAN WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-6man-rfc6874bis-00.txt
In-Reply-To: <20210706161859.2wdw7mkeg4b7nd66@zukertort.childrenofmay.org>
References: <162545101341.19246.8566193740265797873@ietfa.amsl.com> <95a7dbe5-e0a3-4676-9dcc-005ff53725e0@gmail.com> <CA+9kkMD3iSgo-KMM5Ed8bVnVCu_G3f2kB6zHKoOx2ta=x8QucA@mail.gmail.com> <CANMZLAbmdWHDRBPpHgy_e4_0-WUVW2gjnbXWwu2pF_xi-S0vWQ@mail.gmail.com> <87a6n13y0j.fsf@ungleich.ch> <CA+9kkMBx4F0FGZasdk11ogyCOwQZecAEkO4JbECDr4osySN-4w@mail.gmail.com> <20210706152527.j47rcxas5nwz5d63@zukertort.childrenofmay.org> <CA+9kkMDGQxFD6v=NJaDXRdRJ3jaRriTnhnyKeK3cG=jaosQhBQ@mail.gmail.com> <20210706161859.2wdw7mkeg4b7nd66@zukertort.childrenofmay.org>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2021 12:54:01 -0400
Message-ID: <28125.1625590441@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/JKZUKDgoptuVLkyrjCjcuMt-vd0>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 06 Jul 2021 16:54:12 -0000

Andrew Cady <andy@cryptonomic.net> wrote:
    > On Tue, Jul 06, 2021 at 05:00:04PM +0100, Ted Hardie wrote:
    >>
    >> My apologies; it appears that I didn't get my intent across.  Let me
    >> try to rephrase.  Because of a collision between the defined zone-id
    >> scope-id separator and the URI syntax

    > I've already explained to this list, last week, why there is no
    > collision.  So it appears to me, not that I've failed to understand your
    > intent, but that you didn't even read that.  :(

    > To be fair, it was long.  Today I reiterate everything.

    > There is no such collision because IPv6-Literal is not a percent-decoded
    > data component.  Percent-decoding is done AFTER parsing into components,
    > only some of which are encoded like that.  It's done on OTHER COMPONENTS
    > but not done on the component where you say it conflicts.

So why do the browser implementers have such difficulties with processing
this?    Running code wins.

You can argue forever that they are wrong, and yet, here we are, ten years
later, without anything working.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide