Re: Next steps for rfc6874bis

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

Kerry,

> - If this has to be approved by the browser community as a condition
>   of it becoming widely available, do we know if they will support link
>   local addresses in principle?

That is exactly what we need to check, but not on this list because they
aren't here. We (the co-authors) will take this on.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 13-Aug-21 05:24, Kerry Lynn wrote:
> If I could add my $0.02 (even though I'm not current on all the
> discussions and details):
> - I believe http://[fe80::%eth0] _used to work_ in Mozilla browsers;
>   we're talking maybe early 2000s. The earliest version I can find 
online
>   is c. 2015. Pretty sure I might have old VMs that can demonstrate
>   the functionality. (Let's assume there's an existence proof for parsing
>   a naked '%' between square brackets.)
> - If this has to be approved by the browser community as a condition
>   of it becoming widely available, do we know if they will support 
link
>   local addresses in principle? (If not, then the utility of this for e.g.
>   consumer router setup is moot.)
> - If the browser community can support this in principal, then we can
>   discuss EBNF. I strongly favor the syntax above, but any single char
>   is better than "%25". Certain OSes (not naming any names) use
>   numeric ZoneIDs and I think the cognitive dissonance of "%25<nn>"
>   is problematic.
> - If the browser community cannot support this, then we could perhaps
>   develop a patch for cURL to make it available at least for the engineering
>   community (I haven't checked cURL to see if it's already supported).
> 
> Cheers, Kerry
>