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

[Simon Perreault <[e-mail]>]

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