Re: [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-02.txt]

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sat, 14 July 2012 08:41 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 7841521F8703 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 01:41:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.256
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.256 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.435, 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 X9S-kv7d7ro0 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 01:41:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-f178.google.com (mail-wi0-f178.google.com [209.85.212.178]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89CAE21F86F1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 01:41:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wibhr14 with SMTP id hr14so1042419wib.13 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 01:41:45 -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=54XB9rwP1RsQq7spBm8J90DlQCN71djqCO25mZjKLOM=; b=TpKJelNKUSTZwWNC6PWgT1FhsOkqDpkbfmIWKPj0pvc1IJrDufr5dc27wGp7PGmqSV 6CtoHnx54LS+3FcerB4KKhVx4DMxfmSC0EiakVkl4VCMaQIi+p8MpvIYkhcot/mGXae4 LYM2Z99+us0Ig3vdYD/S9zofPQf1O+3+gQoo1lJwJXOboyix525TG2kBSVPr1R/Ij5mY nYvj7Vq2hBNa9GuZ6E7KQlBugrjIBkd6odq/0aa12wyToxowyI8f22PY54il/exnKQiB I+dX3sRzfR2trwEWinEuKVKmve4aUD/j+8JzmxGsTncOX7E5NjwZ4ll6HA5LPds6C7Jv Jsvg==
Received: by 10.180.76.135 with SMTP id k7mr3964286wiw.7.1342255305387; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 01:41:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.65] (host-2-102-216-51.as13285.net. [2.102.216.51]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j6sm12248538wiy.4.2012.07.14.01.41.40 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 14 Jul 2012 01:41:41 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <500130D4.7050604@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 09:41:56 +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: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-02.txt]
References: <4FFD71D7.4070209@gmail.com> <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B6BF582@TK5EX14MBXW603.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <4FFF29E2.6090909@viagenie.ca> <6.2.5.6.2.20120712152812.082ba6f8@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120712152812.082ba6f8@resistor.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
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: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 08:41:08 -0000

On 12/07/2012 23:34, SM wrote:
> Hi Simon,
> At 12:47 12-07-2012, Simon Perreault wrote:
>> Suggestion:
>> On input, applications MUST accept the formal syntax and MAY accept
>> another syntax.
>> On output, applications MUST use the formal syntax and MUST NOT use
>> another syntax.
> 
> As long as an implementation supports the formal syntax, there is
> interoperability.  Telling people what not to use sounds appropriate if
> there is a good reason to do so.  The requirements seem redundant to me.

Also, telling browser implementers what to do has very little chance
of success. Speaking only for myself, I'm inclined to accept Dave Thaler's
line of argument. The fact that some browsers in the past accepted
a raw % and that IE today accepts an escaped % (i.e. %25) makes it very
hard to suggest a consistent use of % at all. Maybe we just have to
drop this point.

   Brian