Re: Fix IPV6 literal notation?

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Tue, 29 December 2020 11:27 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
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 A64003A137D for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 03:27:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.671
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.671 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD=1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JmoWAoVF2z_7 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 03:27:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA1F83A137E for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 03:27:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 0BTBRCBG020820 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 12:27:12 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 0B37E20C117 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 12:27:12 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.12]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 011D2201F8B for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 12:27:12 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.14.0.12] ([10.14.0.12]) by muguet1-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 0BTBRBLS022443 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 12:27:11 +0100
Subject: Re: Fix IPV6 literal notation?
To: ipv6@ietf.org
References: <CAHBU6isQNkE0tmsn7v41Vptgf2OCTQ61gwMKDN4hmK4pBY-J9w@mail.gmail.com> <d244ee54-5f5c-b3e9-bc98-15d59e4ecbe9@gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <26f9d61c-00b2-03d9-1587-4d9155428993@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2020 12:27:11 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <d244ee54-5f5c-b3e9-bc98-15d59e4ecbe9@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/b6imCaSmcKMd1MSkQt8Tbic_da0>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 29 Dec 2020 11:27:17 -0000


Le 27/12/2020 à 00:25, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
> Tim,
> 
> On 27-Dec-20 11:16, Tim Bray wrote:
>> See https://twitter.com/dave_universetf/status/1342685822286360576 
>> to which I heartily concur. IPV6 addresses are neither easy for 
>> humans to read, nor easy for software to parse.
>> 
>> *If* someone has a better idea, there’s no good reason not to 
>> standardize it, the old approach would still work.   Does anyone 
>> have a better idea?
> 
> I have no idea if there's a proposal in that sequence of Twitter 
> messages, but if there is, it should be written up as an I-D aimed
> at the 6man WG and discussed there. (Hence I have changed the IETF
> list to a Bcc: and added the 6man list in Cc:.)
> 
> I can say that this much is wrong:
> 
>> Oh, and the leading zero debate also infects IPv6, to some extent! 
>> The specs tried to specify the textual representation of IPv6, but 
>> it failed to be complete. So it's unclear if 
>> 000001::00001.00002.00003.00004 is a valid IPv6 address
> 
> It's quite clear that it is invalid. RFC4291 section 2.2 says:
> 
> "1. The preferred form is x:x:x:x:x:x:x:x, where the 'x's are one to
>  four hexadecimal digits of the eight 16-bit pieces of the address."

But there is also that notation in a certain RFC which says that
1::1.1.1.1 is a valid notation too.

So combining the two might indeed lead to 1::01.1.1.1 being a
potentially valid notation as well.

> As for writing a parser, I'd expect the starting point to be the
> ABNF in RFC3986 (where the limitation to 4 hex digits is also
> clear).

One might wonder why ABNF (A Backus Naur Form) and not other notations
for grammar descriptions, such as ASN.1 (Abstract Syntax Notation number 1)?

But the idea of a reference parser would be great.  One might start with
the parsers that are open source in BSD and in linux.

A reference parser implementation might help avoid incompatible IP
literal address notations.

Alex

> 
> Regards Brian Carpenter
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>  IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative 
> Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>