Re: Next steps for rfc6874bis

[Philip Homburg <[e-mail]>]

In your letter dated Tue, 17 Aug 2021 08:46:03 +1200 you wrote:
>It isn't even obvious that this was a mistake. If you accept Andrew
>Cady's argument, it was not a mistake at all. (The mistake was in
>assuming that percent-encoding of "%" is required, by Andrew's
>argument.) As Bob says, we need to hear from the browser people.
>The next version of the draft will set this out as an open issue.

I'm quite curious how something like 
https://[fe80::1%eth0]/
conforms to RFC 3986 (Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax)
which says in Section 2.4:
"Because the percent ("%") character serves as the indicator for
"percent-encoded octets, it must be percent-encoded as "%25" for that
"octet to be used as data within a URI.

In any case, the important part is that when we talk to the web community
we offer a different character, such as '-', as an option. Instead of just
focussing on the '%' or '%25' issue.

In my opinion making https://[fe80::1%25]/ a valid URL that refers to the
25th interface is going to lead to a huge number of parsing errors.