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

Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> Sat, 14 July 2012 14:38 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 9D63921F865C for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 07:38:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.088, 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 k1LkI3lLP8I1 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 07:38:41 -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 B3A6221F865A for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 07:38:41 -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 4FD2A415D4; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 10:39:20 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <50018497.2050809@viagenie.ca>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 10:39:19 -0400
From: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120615 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>
In-Reply-To: <500130D4.7050604@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 14:38:42 -0000

On 07/14/2012 04:41 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 12/07/2012 23:34, SM wrote:
>> Hi Simon,
>> At 12:47 12-07-2012, Simon Perreault wrote:
>>> Suggestion:
>>> On input, applications MUST accept the formal syntax and MAY accept
>>> another syntax.
>>> On output, applications MUST use the formal syntax and MUST NOT use
>>> another syntax.
>>
>> As long as an implementation supports the formal syntax, there is
>> interoperability.  Telling people what not to use sounds appropriate if
>> there is a good reason to do so.  The requirements seem redundant to me.
>
> Also, telling browser implementers what to do has very little chance
> of success.

So obviously browser implementers should be involved in this discussion? 
We shouldn't be "telling" them, we should be discussing with them.

> Speaking only for myself, I'm inclined to accept Dave Thaler's
> line of argument. The fact that some browsers in the past accepted
> a raw % and that IE today accepts an escaped % (i.e. %25) makes it very
> hard to suggest a consistent use of % at all. Maybe we just have to
> drop this point.

It looks like my suggestion wasn't clear. I too agree with Dave Thaler's 
argument. I was building on top of it... Not sure how to explain it or 
formulate it otherwise...

Simon
-- 
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca