Re: Reopening RFC6874?

Bob Hinden <> Thu, 17 June 2021 00:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F02FE3A0EEC for <>; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 17:30:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ihDZ1rWMe0cg for <>; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 17:30:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::431]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 565F03A0F46 for <>; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 17:30:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id n7so4614330wri.3 for <>; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 17:30:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=/36FMJQshmmmECJryGbk4ntXcCGaGHMqODP1Jb8dmV4=; b=HjCxMhHP775Jc6C2hknQaTdoE6FKyRO/ZtpYOawOjFwb4xRb2AqAQ5G19t60mM4WII 05MP59gbsGd3dOFgyxaq2mFxnKtYcNuGxiI+iqAUv1ggzijuS9TclirT6aTRhg5a2VM7 9CPia+TnT2NEubS8uD9CodO0Y1pVfEJoxAJilYIrN3e0276gStT7Vk++beuMvEPOBjyz 2UOQG7MkA4ex/USbjmcbMv6wC57U5yhTeiXOogEvM37yj5OeAb2m5cQxAF2nwlZ2WwXg Oz7mreA+pg00sZODkn5VaIU+cYaTSw1MNewDgE8+qPn79ZSmZwgPtZxoCg5gPH016AAY PxWA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=/36FMJQshmmmECJryGbk4ntXcCGaGHMqODP1Jb8dmV4=; b=q8jzjFYDYB5xSBWGuSHjHV/2DuqaM0fVmMf6bplHpU0V0RzetxAIPvhJ0BtVTg79b/ QAdL/IsxH1EbbXUIY6Lh9jZUPWM8fyfew/iSnBmdMfOJ6OOyFRHmVIp2Y45mVpCtiSIi acTTXo/IFR5RoAQK1NqSM6QuuOrKN7eJf/boatd/9WvzOqLiOByQyWMN9i6TKJ+e8fiG nq6MwQqfjw7Dg3OIWntSa8/qoGoc4ips+q83qQ6QihKufFm1CKgZitpqG9/E09T+h5Yl Srd1ViFxle5OMoHNy2ZPo37f1yXLMtB4TdyLYFaHGNe9z3YRHIa49iHPKzsCYzyOvFzq 9dVw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5300AtFujs/5lWx0ucjpMS6szWZ//JL42roqVCHNjf1YuP+vjoS6 dX17Pvc1K3oAaNHdDG/lbBw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyLMjgy04pPYQKQWrOYhY2q2nLj3BPUwMDV7iqLoKOU3zBxh8+OIbTZ7cGbS6u3kvierCy0nw==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:1883:: with SMTP id a3mr2135553wri.65.1623889808881; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 17:30:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id f14sm6043212wmq.10.2021. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 16 Jun 2021 17:30:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bob Hinden <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_17088A2E-7D5E-47BD-960A-5EEFC92B2643"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.21\))
Subject: Re: Reopening RFC6874?
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 17:30:04 -0700
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Bob Hinden <>, IPv6 List <>, Stuart Cheshire <>,
To: Brian Carpenter <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.21)
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 00:30:17 -0000


> On Jun 16, 2021, at 4:58 PM, Brian E Carpenter <> wrote:
> Hi,
> It is probably necessary to re-open RFC6874 "Representing IPv6 Zone Identifiers in Address Literals and Uniform Resource Identifiers."
> Here's the problem. Web browsers do not correctly support Link Local literal addresses, because they cannot parse the zone identifier (aka the interface identifier).
> There are of course no "average user" use cases for this, but there are several technical use cases. Rather than trying to summarise them, I refer you to the Firefox bug thread about this, which has been open for 10 years:
> Officially it's status is WONTFIX, but every year or two discussion restarts.
> There's also an issue at WHATWG:
> My conclusion from the latest round of discussion of those two threads is that if we don't update RFC6874, nothing will change. So I propose that we do update RFC6874. As far as I can tell, the main issue is as follows:
> The security considerations say:
>>   An HTTP client, proxy, or other intermediary MUST remove any ZoneID
>>   attached to an outgoing URI, as it has only local significance at the
>>   sending host.
> There is also non-normative text saying:
>>   However,
>>   URIs including a ZoneID have no meaning outside the originating node.
>>   It would therefore be highly desirable for a browser to remove the
>>   ZoneID from a URI before including that URI in an HTTP request.
> As I understand it, those requirements are considered unreasonable and
> too hard to code by browser implementors. Also, there is a use case
> that Andrew Cardy can describe better than me where the deletion of the
> Zone ID breaks a higher-level protocol. (CUPS printing; Michael Sweet
> raised the issue on this list 8 years ago.)
> Would the WG be interested in taking up this work? I think most of it
> would consist of using the "delete" key on RFC6874.

I can’t speak for the w.g., but as one of the co-authors, I suggest that you pull together a “bis” draft that replaces RFC6874.   That’s the only way to tell the level of interest / opposition.  Shouldn’t be very hard (easy for me to say).