Re: New Version Notification for draft-sweet-uri-zoneid-01.txt

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
To: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
Cc: "Michael Sweet" <msweet@apple.com>; "6man" <ipv6@ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 7:23 PM
> Tom,
>
> I think it is valuable to document this practice, even though it's
> incompatible with the standardised syntax.
>
> I would suggest phrasing things a bit differently, however, to make
> the situation completely clear without value judgments. Here's a
> suggestion for the Abstract; the Introduction would need related
changes:
>
>    This document describes how the zone identifier of an IPv6 scoped
>    address, defined as <zone_id> in the IPv6 Scoped Address
Architecture
>    (RFC 4007), is represented for the purposes of the CUPS protocol in
a
>    Uniform Resource Identifier that includes a literal IPv6 address.
It
>    documents a long-standing usage of the IPvFuture extension point
>    provided in the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) syntax
specification
>    (RFC 3986).  This usage differs from the standard format defined by
>    RFC 6874.

Brian

Yes, I would support the I-D with that text and its consequential
changes.

I know that when I try to write such things, judgements creep in
unnoticed by me (until long after) which is why I did not try to write a
suitable paragraph myself, trusting that within the IETF we could find a
solution if we wanted to:-)

Tom Petch

>
> The language is intended to be completely non-judgmental, and I have
> followed the RFC Editor guideline of not including [citations] in
> the Abstract.
>
> Regards
>    Brian Carpenter
>
> On 27/11/2013 06:10, t.petch wrote:
> > mmmmmm
> >
> > As this I-D says
> > " A separate,
> >    incompatible format was defined and published in RFC 6874. "
> >
> > What it does not say is that RFC6874 has been approved and is on the
> > Standards Track having passed through all the relevant IETF
procedures.
> > (Nor does it say that you tried to raise this as an erratum, when it
> > would have been a technical change to that RFC, and so not an
erratum!)
> >
> > My take is that this I-D must not be published as it stands; it can
do
> > nothing but harm to the IETF.  It has to say something about the
fact
> > that it is in contravention of the aforementioned RFC.  Whether that
> > takes the form of "Updates", applicability statement or what I do
not
> > know; whether it will be possible to achieve consensus on some
suitable
> > form of words, I do not know.
> >
> > Tom Petch
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Michael Sweet" <msweet@apple.com>
> > To: "6man" <ipv6@ietf.org>
> > Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 9:41 PM
> > Subject: Fwd: New Version Notification for
draft-sweet-uri-zoneid-01.txt
> >
> >
> >> All,
> >>
> >> This is my promised second (informational) draft that documents the
> > usage of the IPvFuture encoding of ZoneID's in URIs for CUPS and IPP
in
> > general.
> >>
> >> Begin forwarded message:
> >>
> >>> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
> >>> Subject: New Version Notification for
draft-sweet-uri-zoneid-01.txt
> >>> Date: November 22, 2013 at 4:38:43 PM EST
> >>> To: Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> A new version of I-D, draft-sweet-uri-zoneid-01.txt
> >>> has been successfully submitted by Michael Sweet and posted to the
> >>> IETF repository.
> >>>
> >>> Filename: draft-sweet-uri-zoneid
> >>> Revision: 01
> >>> Title: An IPvFuture Syntax for IPv6 Link-Local Addresses
> >>> Creation date: 2013-11-22
> >>> Group: Individual Submission
> >>> Number of pages: 7
> >>> URL:
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-sweet-uri-zoneid-01.txt
> >>> Status:
> > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sweet-uri-zoneid
> >>> Htmlized:
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sweet-uri-zoneid-01
> >>> Diff:
> > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-sweet-uri-zoneid-01
> >>> Abstract:
> >>>   This document describes how the zone identifier of an IPv6
scoped
> >>>   address, defined as <zone_id> in the IPv6 Scoped Address
> > Architecture
> >>>   (RFC 4007), can be represented in a literal IPv6 address and in
a
> >>>   Uniform Resource Identifier that includes such a literal
address.
> > It
> >>>   documents a long-standing usage of the IPvFuture extension point
> >>>   provided in the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) syntax
> >>>   specification [RFC3986].
> >>>
> >>>   [ Editor's note: This draft documents the IPvFuture format
> > originally
> >>>   defined in [LITERAL-ZONE] and used by CUPS since 2005.  A
> > separate,
> >>>   incompatible format was defined and published in RFC 6874. ]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> > submission
> >>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at
tools.ietf.org.
> >>>
> >>> The IETF Secretariat
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________________________
> >> Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
> >>
>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> >> ipv6@ietf.org
> >> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > ipv6@ietf.org
> > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>