Re: Options for draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid

"Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com> Fri, 04 May 2012 13:29 UTC

Return-Path: <rajiva@cisco.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 D048721F86E4 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 May 2012 06:29:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.541
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.541 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.539, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTTP_ESCAPED_HOST=0.134, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067]
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 lV-SuqI1Wc6r for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 May 2012 06:29:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 124B221F86C3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 May 2012 06:29:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4537; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1336138156; x=1337347756; h=subject:references:content-transfer-encoding:from: in-reply-to:message-id:date:to:cc:mime-version; bh=VuiVv8uBkIi0DvA/U8YVa1x7V2KNygZyQE+MJF/42e0=; b=lPcl/e1YMWHwBqaCsYX8lmaSh3UG7QGHk3oFHjzPHWpzfzG5Cd8QPDyi 8mseU4plwxI6FvduQvm1EtdXLynAOdUE9k8OYkDllMNsK7SWm7kaMvdQk MCmlYEO8bkLn2Bd1uMWXazLt3zZpf+2Z8drJj2vsNj/zXnJ65DAiSVNic c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AngIAM3Yo0+tJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABFsl8CgQeCCQEBAQMBAQEBDwEnDyIDCwUHBAIBCBUBMCEGMAEBBBMUBweHXQMGBQuaapZADYlTigt6hSVjBIhkjRqLP4MagWmDBoE2
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,530,1330905600"; d="scan'208";a="77373039"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 May 2012 13:29:15 +0000
Received: from xbh-rcd-202.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-202.cisco.com [72.163.62.201]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q44DTFqN021345; Fri, 4 May 2012 13:29:15 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-212.cisco.com ([72.163.62.219]) by xbh-rcd-202.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 4 May 2012 08:29:15 -0500
Received: from 72.163.62.219 ([72.163.62.219]) by XMB-RCD-212.cisco.com ([72.163.62.219]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Fri, 4 May 2012 13:29:14 +0000
Subject: Re: Options for draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid
References: <4F9CF3A8.7000801@gmail.com> <00a401cd29ca$41453680$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: <00a401cd29ca$41453680$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
Message-ID: <F5F897FF-6E59-45EA-B5D1-A4F1363718B4@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: Options for draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid
Thread-Index: Ac0p+eX7uQO8J1Y8RYCo9YvFoYXhhA==
Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 08:29:11 -0500
To: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 May 2012 13:29:15.0347 (UTC) FILETIME=[E6727A30:01CD29F9]
Cc: 6man <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: Fri, 04 May 2012 13:29:16 -0000

+1 for option 3 with hyphen. 

I like to be able to read the URI without having to put my glasses on.

Cheers,
Rajiv

Sent from my Phone

On May 4, 2012, at 3:50 AM, "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com> wrote:

> Brian
> 
> To me, Option 3 is the clear, right way to go.
> 
> Percent escaping is the purist answer, fine for URI experts who deal with
> percent escaping all the time.  Most of the world is completely comfortable with
> URIs as long as they look like
> www.example.com/user/sample.html
> Some get confused even by the addition of http: and most would be completely
> thrown by the appearance of a percent sign (even if they are always appearing on
> the Internet Explorer address bar, which most people either do not look at or
> have turned off).
> 
> I believe that the audience for this feature is widespread, not just limited to
> URI experts.  IPv6 is horribly complicated, it will often go wrong, so I see
> help desks asking users to key this in as a common use case.  In which case, you
> need a simple to locate on the keyboard, simple to refer to in 'English',
> character to separate the two fields.  %25 is not it.
> 
> Anything else would do but I think that underscore is the worst choice, because
> it vanishes.
> http://[fe80::a_en1
> on my Microsoft MUA displays, underlined in blue, as
> f e 8 0 : : a [space] e n 1
> so that is what I know it is; except of course I am a URI expert so I know that
> if it were really a space, the e n 1 would not be underlined in blue so there is
> a invisible underline there!
> 
> tilde is nice, but too hard to find on the keyboard, so, of unreserved, that
> leaves period or hyphen; I would go for hyphen.
> 
> --- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
> To: "6man" <ipv6@ietf.org>
> Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 9:54 AM
> 
>> In the IETF 83 discussion of draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-00,
>> there was no clear consensus on the approach to pursue. In fact,
>> almost the same discussion occurred around draft-fenner-literal-zone
>> several years ago, but at that time the topic was simply dropped.
>> 
>> This note summarises the main options. As a reminder, the problem to
>> be solved is how to tell a browser which interface to use when sending
>> packets to a literal link-local address. The reason for doing this is
>> purely for diagnostic purposes, since the Zone ID that identifies an
>> interface has no significance outside the sending host. For more details,
>> see the two drafts mentioned above.
>> 
>> What we have today: link local address with no Zone ID
>>   http://[fe80::a]
>> 
>> The user cannot select the outgoing interface if there is more than one.
>> 
>> The obvious solution would be to use the RFC4007 syntax (for an
>> example Zone ID of en1):
>> 
>>   http://[fe80::a%en1]
>> 
>> However, this is impossible because % is *always* an escape character in
>> URI syntax [RFC3986]. There is no chance of the URI community accepting
>> such a hack to the syntax, so it isn't an option for us.
>> 
>> The available options are therefore
>> 
>> 1) Leave the problem unsolved.
>> 
>> This would mean that per-interface diagnostics would still have to be
>> performed using ping or ping6
>> 
>>   ping fe80::a%en1
>> 
>> Advantage: works today.
>> 
>> Disadvantage: less convenient than using a browswer.
>> 
>> 2) Escaping the escape character as allowed by RFC 3986:
>> 
>>   http://[fe80::a%25en1]
>> 
>> Advantage: allows use of browser.
>> Disadvantage: ugly and confusing, doesn't allow simple cut and paste.
>> 
>> 3) With alternative separator such as _
>> 
>>   http://[fe80::a_en1]
>> 
>> Advantage: allows use of browser.
>> Disadvantage: doesn't allow simple cut and paste.
>> 
>> 4) With the "IPvFuture" syntax left open in RFC 3986:
>> 
>>   http://[v6.fe80::a_en1]
>> 
>> Advantage: allows use of browser.
>> Disadvantage: ugly and redundant, doesn't allow simple cut and paste.
>> 
>> Thus, the WG has to choose between options 1), 2), 3) and 4).
>> 
>> Opinions welcome!
>> 
>>    Brian Carpenter
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------