Re: Candidate draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-02

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Sorry - thought I'd deleted the cc to the list.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter




On 10/07/2012 14:54, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Bob (as co-author) and Dave (as reviewer),
> 
> Here's a proposed update and a diff file.
> 
> Please let me know ASAP if this is OK for you, as the cutoff is approaching.
> 
> Regards
>    Brian
> 
> On 10/07/2012 08:13, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Dave, we do of course make the point that it's only locally significant, but
>> a reference to that paragraph of 3986 would complete the story.
>>
>> Regards
>>    Brian
>>
>>
>> On 09/07/2012 19:54, Dave Thaler wrote:
>>> One additional gap that I think SHOULD be addressed.  RFC 3986 says:
>>>
>>>    URIs have a global scope and are interpreted consistently regardless
>>>    of context, though the result of that interpretation may be in
>>>    relation to the end-user's context.  For example, "http://localhost/"
>>>    has the same interpretation for every user of that reference, even
>>>    though the network interface corresponding to "localhost" may be
>>>    different for each end-user: interpretation is independent of access.
>>>    However, an action made on the basis of that reference will take
>>>    place in relation to the end-user's context, which implies that an
>>>    action intended to refer to a globally unique thing must use a URI
>>>    that distinguishes that resource from all other things.  URIs that
>>>    identify in relation to the end-user's local context should only be
>>>    used when the context itself is a defining aspect of the resource,
>>>    such as when an on-line help manual refers to a file on the end-
>>>    user's file system (e.g., "file:///etc/hosts").
>>>
>>> It should be pointed out in the zoneid document that adding a zone id
>>> changes the scope to be localhost rather than the scope of the address.
>>>
>>> So "http://[fe80::1]/blah" is valid anywhere on the same link.
>>> But "http://[fe80::1-id]/blah" is valid only within the same host.
>>>
>>> -Dave
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>>>> Dave Thaler
>>>> Sent: Friday, July 6, 2012 10:33 AM
>>>> To: Brian E Carpenter; Bob Hinden
>>>> Cc: [e-mail] Chairs; draft-ietf-6man-uri-
>>>> [e-mail]; [e-mail] Mailing List
>>>> Subject: RE: 6MAN WG [second] Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-01.txt
>>>>
>>>> It's documented on the page in my original email.
>>>>
>>>> However it's not sufficient.  Remember my second piece of feedback was
>>>> that the document contradicts itself, implying the specified syntax supports
>>>> cut and paste, but then doesn't provide a section updating RFC 4007 section
>>>> 11.
>>>>
>>>> If the document both mentions that alternative 3 is used by many things
>>>> today (IE, Windows, applications) within APIs that take URI-like strings, and
>>>> also adds a section updating RFC 4007 section 11, then I'd be happy with it.
>>>>
>>>> -Dave
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>> Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 9:57 AM
>>>>> To: Bob Hinden
>>>>> Cc: Dave Thaler; [e-mail] Chairs;
>>>>> draft-ietf-6man-uri- [e-mail]; [e-mail] Mailing List
>>>>> Subject: Re: 6MAN WG [second] Last Call:
>>>>> draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-01.txt
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd be happy with that, or a small appendix. Dave, is it documented
>>>> anywhere?
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>    Brian
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2012-07-06 15:00, Bob Hinden wrote:
>>>>>> With my co-author hat on, would it help to include a description of
>>>>>> what IE
>>>>> supports in Section 3. Web Browsers?
>>>>>> Bob
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 6, 2012, at 6:01 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dave,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) FYI, the deadline we gave the URI list to comment on this has
>>>>>>> just passed, with only one (positive) reply.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2) It's for the WG Chairs to say if they want another version in
>>>>>>> view of your comments.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3) I don't see how the % format is currently legal. There's no
>>>>>>> provision for any characters after the IPv6 address, whether
>>>>>>> percent-encoded or not. We heard of browsers that previously
>>>>>>> allowed full RFC 4007 syntax (% *not* treated as an escape) but
>>>>>>> this is the first I've heard of IE allowing a zone index at all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>   Brian
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2012-07-06 02:28, Dave Thaler wrote:
>>>>>>>> I know it's after the designated end of WGLC, but here's my
>>>> feedback...
>>>>>>>> The document appears to call out existing practice in several
>>>>>>>> places, such as
>>>>> in section 1:
>>>>>>>>>  Some versions of some browsers accept the RFC 4007 syntax for
>>>>>>>>> scoped
>>>>>>>>>  IPv6 addresses embedded in URIs, i.e., they have been coded to
>>>>>>>>> interpret the "%" sign according to RFC 4007 instead of RFC 3986.
>>>>>>>> and in Appendix A point 1:
>>>>>>>>> Advantage: works today.
>>>>>>>> However, it's missing discussion of other alternatives already in
>>>>>>>> common
>>>>> practice.
>>>>>>>> For example alternative 3 (escaping the escape character as
>>>>>>>> allowed by RFC
>>>>> 3986) has:
>>>>>>>>>      Advantage: allows use of browser.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>      Disadvantage: ugly and confusing, doesn't allow simple cut and
>>>>>>>>>      paste.
>>>>>>>> The disadvantage is certainly true.  However the main advantage
>>>>>>>> are notably lacking, which is that it's already in common practice
>>>>>>>> in many places (to the extent that using a zone id at all is
>>>>>>>> common practice
>>>>> anyway).
>>>>>>>> You'll see at
>>>>>>>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-
>>>> us/library/windows/desktop/aa385325(v
>>>>>>>> =v s.85).aspx that alternative 3 is what is supported in IE7 and
>>>>>>>> above, and the APIs are generally available to Windows
>>>>>>>> applications (i.e.
>>>>>>>> not just IE7).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The document does not state whether the existing legal use is
>>>>>>>> suddenly declared to be illegal, or just another legal way of
>>>>>>>> doing the same
>>>>> thing.
>>>>>>>> If you're telling existing applications and OS's that use alternative 3 that
>>>> they
>>>>>>>> have to change, that doesn't sound like a good thing.   That's because
>>>> many
>>>>> apps
>>>>>>>> want to be OS-version-independent and use URI parsing libraries
>>>>>>>> provided
>>>>> by
>>>>>>>> the OS.   We don't want apps to code their own URI parsing (it's very
>>>> easy to
>>>>>>>> get wrong, especially when you add various internationalization
>>>> issues).
>>>>>>>> As a result, apps will tend to code to the lowest common denominator
>>>> of
>>>>>>>> OS's they want to work on.    That means I expect to see apps coding to
>>>>>>>> alternative 3 for the foreseeable future.   When they don't use them in
>>>>>>>> edit boxes, the disadvantage of not being able to cut and paste is
>>>>>>>> not a real disadvantage.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Personally I don't have an issue with allowing both formats if the
>>>>>>>> WG feels strongly that a cut-and-paste-friendly format is needed
>>>>>>>> in addition to what's existing practice, though having two does
>>>>>>>> affect the rules for comparison (see
>>>>>>>> draft-iab-identifier-comparison section 3.1.2) but not noticeably.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Finally, the stated disadvantage of alternative 3 is only a disadvantage
>>>> if the
>>>>>>>> specified scheme in section 2 *does* allow cut-and-paste.   For that to
>>>>>>>> happen, it means the zone id separator has to work outside the
>>>> context of
>>>>>>>> URIs.   That is, section 2 says:
>>>>>>>>>  Thus, the scoped address fe80::a%en1 would appear in a URI as
>>>>>>>>> http://[fe80::a-en1].
>>>>>>>> To support cut-and-paste, that means that "ping fe80::a-en1"
>>>>>>>> needs to work.   But this document is titled
>>>>>>>> " Representing IPv6 Zone Identifiers in Uniform Resource Identifiers"
>>>>>>>> and similarly the abstract limits its scope to URIs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hence section 2 is in contradiction with the analysis of alternative 3.
>>>>>>>> The document already says it "updates 4007" so it seems that
>>>>>>>> what's lacking is a section specifically updating RFC 4007 section
>>>>>>>> 11 which would declare that both '%' and '-' are acceptable
>>>>>>>> separators in the textual representation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Dave
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
>>>>>>>>> Behalf Of Ole Trøan
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 5:18 AM
>>>>>>>>> To: [e-mail] Mailing List
>>>>>>>>> Cc: [e-mail] Chairs; draft-ietf-6man-uri-
>>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>> Subject: 6MAN WG [second] Last Call:
>>>>>>>>> draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-01.txt
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This message starts a one-week 6MAN Working Group Last Call on
>>>>> advancing:
>>>>>>>>>     Title     : Representing IPv6 Zone Identifiers in Uniform
>>>>>>>>>                 Resource Identifiers
>>>>>>>>>     Author(s) : Brian Carpenter
>>>>>>>>>                 Robert M. Hinden
>>>>>>>>>     Filename  : draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-01.txt
>>>>>>>>>     Pages     : 9
>>>>>>>>>     Date      : 2012-05-29
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> as a Proposed Standard. Substantive comments should be directed
>>>>>>>>> to the mailing list or the co-chairs. Editorial suggestions can
>>>>>>>>> be sent to the
>>>>> authors.
>>>>>>>>> This last call will end on June 20, 2012.
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> Bob, & Ole
>>>>>>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> - IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [e-mail]
>>>>>>>>> Administrative
>>>>>>>>> Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>>>>>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> -- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [e-mail]
>>>>>>>> Administrative
>>>>>>>> Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> - IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [e-mail] Administrative
>>>>>>> Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> -
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>