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

Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> Sat, 14 July 2012 17:16 UTC

Return-Path: <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
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 3E7DF21F8703 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 10:16:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.523
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.076, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 a8ZQIgk8+3aC for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 10:16:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000:226:55ff:fe57:14db]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89E6221F86CF for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 10:16:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from porto.nomis80.org (modemcable212.59-179-173.mc.videotron.ca [173.179.59.212]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EFB81415D4; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 13:16:37 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <5001A974.3020908@viagenie.ca>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 13:16:36 -0400
From: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; OpenBSD amd64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120712 Thunderbird/13.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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> <500130D4.7050604@gmail.com> <50018497.2050809@viagenie.ca> <5001A6A1.4020109@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5001A6A1.4020109@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
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 17:16:01 -0000

On 07/14/12 13:04, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> So obviously browser implementers should be involved in this discussion?
>> We shouldn't be "telling" them, we should be discussing with them.
>
> Yes, but I think that's outside the scope of the present draft.
> I understand that there is forum for such discussions over in
> W3C-land.

Ah ok.

> I think your suggestion was clear, just not (IMHO) a useful thing to
> put in an RFC.

Thanks, at least that is clear.

Simon