Re: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-6man-rfc6874bis-00.txt

Andrew Cady <andy@cryptonomic.net> Tue, 06 July 2021 16:09 UTC

Return-Path: <andy@cryptonomic.net>
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 3D6483A2CE3 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 09:09:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VPlivCtCebtu for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 09:09:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zukertort.childrenofmay.org (zukertort.childrenofmay.org [IPv6:2607:5300:201:3100::27b7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 300693A2CE1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 09:09:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by zukertort.childrenofmay.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D0028F2DE4A; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 12:09:04 -0400 (EDT)
Resent-From: Andrew Cady <andy@childrenofmay.org>
Resent-Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2021 12:09:04 -0400
Resent-Message-ID: <20210706160904.oyatc225b6qjb5ki@zukertort.childrenofmay.org>
Resent-To: 6MAN WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2021 11:45:45 -0400
From: Andrew Cady <andy@cryptonomic.net>
To: Nico Schottelius <nico.schottelius@ungleich.ch>
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, 6MAN WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-6man-rfc6874bis-00.txt
Message-ID: <20210706154545.mptfdxq33nbjcjm7@zukertort.childrenofmay.org>
References: <162545101341.19246.8566193740265797873@ietfa.amsl.com> <95a7dbe5-e0a3-4676-9dcc-005ff53725e0@gmail.com> <CA+9kkMD3iSgo-KMM5Ed8bVnVCu_G3f2kB6zHKoOx2ta=x8QucA@mail.gmail.com> <CANMZLAbmdWHDRBPpHgy_e4_0-WUVW2gjnbXWwu2pF_xi-S0vWQ@mail.gmail.com> <87a6n13y0j.fsf@ungleich.ch> <CA+9kkMBx4F0FGZasdk11ogyCOwQZecAEkO4JbECDr4osySN-4w@mail.gmail.com> <01289d8c-a470-1867-448f-3d616647ba5f@gmail.com> <87bl7flww8.fsf@ungleich.ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87bl7flww8.fsf@ungleich.ch>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/jkOxZboqFAu_2Yv2hJsRDR8Q_qo>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 06 Jul 2021 16:09:11 -0000

On Tue, Jul 06, 2021 at 09:33:11AM +0200, Nico Schottelius wrote:
> 
> While copy & paste won't work with this proposal, I believe the %25
> escape should be "good enough" for most daily usage.
> 
> I think we don't need to aim for a "perfect solution", which we will not
> be able to achieve anyway, but a solution for reality.

The perfect solution is just the simple one of not introducing the
anti-feature of name-mangling.  It is simpler NOT to add that to Firefox
than to add it.  And it is more correct.  For the same reason!

> In a perfect world, the [...%] syntax would have been introduced (and
> accepted) prior to % escape in URLs.

It doesn't matter that '%' is also an escape character in some of
the URI data segments.  Percent-decoding is done AFTER parsing into
segments.  We don't have to worry about implementations accidentaly
decoding segments that aren't even allowed to be encoded.

So that does not conflict with the use of a % as a delimiter ending a
data segment (such as IPv6-Literal) that is NOT percent-encoded.

It would only conflict if the IPv6-Literal field allowed % encoded
values!

The whole problem is imaginary.