Re: 6MAN WG [second] Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-01.txt

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

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
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------