Re: WG Last Call for for draft-ietf-6man-rfc6874bis

[Michael Sweet <[e-mail]>]

Ted,

> On Jun 16, 2022, at 9:36 AM, Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> The URI syntax specification [RFC3986] states that URIs have a global scope, but that in some cases their interpretation depends on the end-user's context. URIs including a zone identifier are to be interpreted only in the context of the host at which they originate, since the zone identifier is of local significance only.
> 
> Does this mean that when a browser loads a web page, and that web page contains IPv6 address literal URIs with zone identifiers, and the source of the web page was not the local host, the URIs are un-interpretable? That is, what does "at which they originate" mean?

The specific use case here are embedded web interfaces on IoT device like printers.  The printer validates and uses the client-supplied Host: header to dynamically generate any URIs/URLs that are embedded in the content it sends to the user's web browser.

The same also happens for IPP printers when you ask them for HTTP/HTTPS-based resources like icons, message catalogs, ICC profiles, etc.

> ...
> Would it be correct to say that the text within an IPv6 address literal never contains percent-encodings? If so, then it might be less complicated to just say that. I think a parser that follows this rule would be more regular than one that doesn't make this restriction and does allow percent encoding within the literal except in the case of the stated exception.

I agree - the words can be simple like this and the ABNF can be updated to reflect having an optional zone identifier delimited by "%".

________________________
Michael Sweet