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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 06 July 2012 16:56 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 07FD021F8736 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 09:56:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.066
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.066 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.625, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP=1.908, 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 vmKwkzgyniS1 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 09:56:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ee0-f44.google.com (mail-ee0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5801C21F8685 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 09:56:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by eekd4 with SMTP id d4so3975497eek.31 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 06 Jul 2012 09:56:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=+0mlBTD1mwSNFoi1yJMWJ6vsYMuCCXOy/HWC565pWzQ=; b=o0GJgbVQXrIvjJXJVD0Net8qxFDwk4MZcjbRkpj1gTJP8INAWmvi9HagEkY+f39kL7 DL/iWZvb2WhroK9O89paJD3nRFrvAaOo91sVok+FejTQ3xEwn5VFj1/UuUWV54GjPG9n 1rD0lhqIvi3E7cAv4GVz8Al/5oD0vOYAqlG4D6NarXXmovqcRvpgAk5idvimtPiWHCtU zkPuw1pUYknvIANrXY2HZjTcyLIIDkIZNbsfUmlbUorTj/urKTTd95vzPTs2MteD3Ez5 GLjQFlK1J78q/JDqx6dXz69cwdfmqIug6Fq+78n6bwreZQPP0lD0iiFRaH4YBVDKP4Br Cwug==
Received: by 10.14.101.72 with SMTP id a48mr7692780eeg.120.1341593805144; Fri, 06 Jul 2012 09:56:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.67] (host-2-102-219-21.as13285.net. [2.102.219.21]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e48sm72947280eea.12.2012.07.06.09.56.42 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 06 Jul 2012 09:56:43 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4FF718C7.5060206@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 17:56:39 +0100
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 6MAN WG [second] Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-01.txt
References: <4CD4908C-3524-45BC-BA6F-1A595E91FFD9@employees.org> <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B68F527@TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <4FF6E199.5020007@gmail.com> <F9D7BDB7-D90F-4FCB-A31F-6BD9F359641D@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <F9D7BDB7-D90F-4FCB-A31F-6BD9F359641D@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org Chairs" <6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid@tools.ietf.org, "ipv6@ietf.org Mailing List" <ipv6@ietf.org>, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
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 16:56:31 -0000

I'd be happy with that, or a small appendix. Dave, is it documented anywhere?

Regards
   Brian

On 2012-07-06 15:00, Bob Hinden wrote:
> 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
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>