Re: Reopening RFC6874?

Kerry Lynn <> Thu, 17 June 2021 00:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46C403A0E1E for <>; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 17:15:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.25
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.25 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.248, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a9AvFLG_xs30 for <>; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 17:15:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E487D3A0E18 for <>; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 17:15:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id w14so3902162ilv.1 for <>; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 17:15:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=1zJSbLy/sRpkg1Hh9SDzCgwnO5uM1j8b8JJftgQKpFE=; b=ZWBHGejFxoRqSI8y8tBQAxHcKolFcE1ijWjpjS/jq9Rxmdyo/z57NuEyibJXTxE37n +zIWo+7eSmFjy+31sdLz6CdBDscvv5NTkwatjnGQVidHk9bQGKFht/ygc7ulAotfKPNO deOSanruToS7/sIPca9SWP8VtXStAd7jqH+xI=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=1zJSbLy/sRpkg1Hh9SDzCgwnO5uM1j8b8JJftgQKpFE=; b=f3VJTGBZ8HWmQDBsyQgmuAPd+0+0/spP8URGs5iZZlg9ex4JswVLbfm9tLS9K/lXeo 1nmVkPhTdct6dZnw41UU2IZZDBA4mujKAAcl8HtcvMUwAvPlW0PNEI6BZKDpnKDkPsf+ fFCoDLq6YwQ8Gu7hLBRhXrY5XnPGKkwLBe/jIyJUuKXkQw5YmxTlVvkINbq/1ffWoTAI lXGtHPROLcIEx0+ONS8yUhN8PHjv5bl/J4vUHXha+61WRjK2DjDZ/itOSV9CpqeZVnAU xyc1DAnwRQ2LW9fANWoVOChlJuOkCbjPaT4mUJ6FzMDZVAaPIAJz/pNPYY7Ze7OcL92V RZCg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532yg2RLOxgIgZiBIt5dKAhypUcpTvl9lSfnv0KQDoHfKi1eLf3W 4ZYHCr4oquriDvh4934AyEuX/piB9IZ0fJCTAn4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyLcrT1XdhMz1zEeSEf7CHWx18Dl059EFWdFS2SjUCZ1QS0Gw3EvQy7p9rdaFSIx85u+pTawfkLUfVIzDmpgwQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:1383:: with SMTP id d3mr332825ilo.172.1623888932388; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 17:15:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Kerry Lynn <>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 20:15:20 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Reopening RFC6874?
To: Brian E Carpenter <>
Cc: 6man <>, Stuart Cheshire <>,
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f8464305c4eb1a7a"
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 00:15:43 -0000

On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 7:58 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.
> Hi Brian,

Am I correct in assuming that no implementation will proceed without
approval? In the event, we might first try to initiate a conversation with
them to
explain why this functionality would be useful and see if there's a
solution they
would find acceptable.

Cheers, Kerry

>    Brian Carpenter
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> Administrative Requests:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------