[IPv6]Re: draft-carpenter-6man-zone-ui: Call for Adoption

[David Schinazi <[e-mail]>]

Hi Brian,

If the text I proposed (or some variation thereof) were added to the draft,
I would withdraw my opposition to adoption - because that would address my
concerns. I wouldn't go as far as supporting adoption, because to me it's
unclear what positive change to the world would come as a result of this
draft; the Wireshark example above is valid, but they'll respond better to
a code PR adding support than to an RFC telling them they should. In other
words, with the change I would stand out of the way but wouldn't help push
this forward.

Cheers,
David

On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 1:52 PM Brian E Carpenter <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Thanks David. Do I take it that with this addition promised for the next
> update, you'd be OK with adoption?
>
> Regards
>     Brian Carpenter
>
> On 04-Jun-24 06:38, David Schinazi wrote:
> > A potential suggestion for wording would be to add an explicit sentence
> at the end of last paragraph of Section 3:
> >
> > "In this model, the zone identifier is considered independently of the
> IPv6 address itself, and thus in the case of a web browser would not be
> considered part of a URL. However, this does not in itself resolve the
> difficulties in considering the zone identifier as part of the HTTP origin
> model [RFC6454]. Therefore, this approach does not resolve the issue of how
> browsers should support link-local addresses, discussed further in
> [I-D.schinazi-httpbis-link-local-uri-bcp]. Because of this, the
> recommendations and normative statements in this document do not apply to
> web browsers."
> >
> > I do think this is needed, because otherwise this document fails to
> capture the research already performed by the browser community into
> whether it could implement the SHOULD in this draft. And that could lead to
> confusion during another round of feature requests using this document as
> motivation.
> >
> > David
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 2, 2024 at 2:47 PM Brian E Carpenter <
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >
> >     On 30-May-24 16:11, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
> >      > I support adoption under the assumption that we will address
> browser
> >      > concerns (as expressed by David Schinazi) to their satisfaction,
> >
> >     I'd be interested in specific suggestions for the wording, since
> >     the text already says:
> >
> >     "This document obsoletes [RFC6874], which implementors
> >     of web browsers have determined is impracticable to support..."
> >
> >     and
> >
> >     "Therefore, this approach
> >     does not resolve the issue of how browsers should support link-local
> >     addresses..."
> >
> >     So what else is needed? The whole specification is a BCP14 SHOULD,
> >     which means that there
> >     "may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
> >     particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
> >     carefully weighed before choosing a different course."
> >     That is exactly what the browser implementors have already done.
> >
> >      > and
> >      > that we see this as a first step to improving the situation with
> zone
> >      > identifiers in general (as expressed e.g. by David Farner).
> >
> >     I agree. Personally I won't take the lead on 4007bis effort, but I'm
> >     sure it's needed.
> >
> >      >
> >      > The reason I support adoption is that if published, this will
> obsolete
> >      > RFC 6874, which we know was wishful thinking.
> >
> >     Sadly, yes.
> >
> >            Brian
> >
> >      >
> >      > Regards,   Martin.
> >      >
> >      > On 2024-05-28 00:55, Jen Linkova wrote:
> >      >> This email starts an adoption call for the following document:
> >      >>
> >      >> Title : Entering IPv6 Zone Identifiers in User Interfaces
> >      >> Authors : B. Carpenter, R. Hinden
> >      >> Pages : 9
> >      >> Date : 2024-03-31
> >      >>
> >      >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-carpenter-6man-zone-ui/ <
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-carpenter-6man-zone-ui/>
> >      >>
> >      >> Please note that the draft in question is a continuation of the
> work
> >      >> done in draft-ietf-6man-rfc6874bis which was adopted by this WG
> >      >> previously.
> >      >>
> >      >> Substantive comments, statements of support for adopting this
> >      >> document or objections to the adoption should be sent to the
> mailing
> >      >> list.  Editorial suggestions can be sent to the authors.
> >      >> .
> >      >> This adoption call will end on June 12th 2024.
> >      >>
> >      >> Regards,
> >      >>
> >      >> Ole & Jen
> >      >>
> >      >>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >      >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> >      >> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >      >> Administrative Requests:
> >      >>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >      >
> >      >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >      > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> >      > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >      > Administrative Requests:
> >      >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >     --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >     IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> >     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >     Administrative Requests:
> >     --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>