Re: [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-02.txt]

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sat, 14 July 2012 17:03 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 8A35521F8686 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 10:03:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.265
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.426, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP=1.908, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 MQaPcbH0mpMJ for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 10:03:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-f172.google.com (mail-we0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D873521F8681 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 10:03:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by weyu54 with SMTP id u54so3068343wey.31 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 10:04:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=xQTelPutaNUJPHiQeNJ5s8QFDxx8HCerQkEO0pvsHN8=; b=GXJfk/52dLrivRt5UO1UQa2sWbXPt84OYbY6PRzVmvUYfmlw9+2DEFLhRQNyaakdzB xCHvt+lJz7i/2EeEF5SeU2TFjekrE6EPXo0X5OaHP5ZhWMXIlqHcWaicMxmOG0YQTTfV jiD61d8yC4lbPSqhMk13T4ypV42inv887vW3hAta3RAUnMmStcMF2BSz1VPXbNcnNp5T g30l/DPcoxU8/1YaAD2swm/r+WQE53pXDWGtqO7LhpR0tu8w2TMEWh5ag1akP14tcMoh Nyw+Mi5+b0jFEmQauFTiTKPeYFVz2qSPWOmlyravuhNSLgHIxAAK1dfaivhTLkXL+/dz G/9g==
Received: by 10.180.107.103 with SMTP id hb7mr6430444wib.3.1342285457610; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 10:04:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.65] (host-2-102-216-51.as13285.net. [2.102.216.51]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ex20sm9849392wid.7.2012.07.14.10.04.15 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 14 Jul 2012 10:04:16 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5001A6A1.4020109@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 18:04:33 +0100
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-02.txt]
References: <4FFD71D7.4070209@gmail.com> <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B6BF582@TK5EX14MBXW603.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <4FFF29E2.6090909@viagenie.ca> <6.2.5.6.2.20120712152812.082ba6f8@resistor.net> <500130D4.7050604@gmail.com> <50018497.2050809@viagenie.ca>
In-Reply-To: <50018497.2050809@viagenie.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: 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: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 17:03:39 -0000

On 14/07/2012 15:39, Simon Perreault wrote:
> On 07/14/2012 04:41 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> On 12/07/2012 23:34, SM wrote:
>>> Hi Simon,
>>> At 12:47 12-07-2012, Simon Perreault wrote:
>>>> Suggestion:
>>>> On input, applications MUST accept the formal syntax and MAY accept
>>>> another syntax.
>>>> On output, applications MUST use the formal syntax and MUST NOT use
>>>> another syntax.
>>>
>>> As long as an implementation supports the formal syntax, there is
>>> interoperability.  Telling people what not to use sounds appropriate if
>>> there is a good reason to do so.  The requirements seem redundant to me.
>>
>> Also, telling browser implementers what to do has very little chance
>> of success.
> 
> So obviously browser implementers should be involved in this discussion?
> We shouldn't be "telling" them, we should be discussing with them.

Yes, but I think that's outside the scope of the present draft.
I understand that there is forum for such discussions over in
W3C-land.

> 
>> Speaking only for myself, I'm inclined to accept Dave Thaler's
>> line of argument. The fact that some browsers in the past accepted
>> a raw % and that IE today accepts an escaped % (i.e. %25) makes it very
>> hard to suggest a consistent use of % at all. Maybe we just have to
>> drop this point.
> 
> It looks like my suggestion wasn't clear. I too agree with Dave Thaler's
> argument. I was building on top of it... Not sure how to explain it or
> formulate it otherwise...

I think your suggestion was clear, just not (IMHO) a useful thing to
put in an RFC.

    Brian