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

On 28/11/2013 00:44, Michael R Sweet wrote:
> Brian,
> 
> I have no objections to your suggested changes to the abstract and will endeavor to mirror them in the introduction.
> 
> Question: is it appropriate at all to mention the incompatibilities with RFC 6874 or should I simply say this is different and move on?

I think that the word 'incompatible' is a bit tricky. If you have two different
branches in the ABNF, leading to two different ways of expressing the same
semantics, they are not in a technical sense incompatible with the ABNF.
Isn't that what we have? I assume one could write a parser that allows both.

6874 forbids transmitting the new syntax outside the host, but it doesn't
forbid the CUPS syntax. So I think in the end, peaceful coexistence should
be possible.

   Brian

> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Nov 26, 2013, at 2:23 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
> 