Re: Link-local IPv6 addresses in URIs

Kerry Lynn <kerlyn2001@gmail.com> Thu, 17 November 2011 06:14 UTC

Return-Path: <kerlyn2001@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 69B5A21F978D for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 22:14:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.298
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_37=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 vQF6Iy22bLV7 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 22:14:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E512D21F9792 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 22:14:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by eyg24 with SMTP id 24so1800522eyg.31 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 22:14:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=QUpDykIljxPBbWwWweu/Up4Y/9FoIWkOVMgBrn1w46Q=; b=PjP6982DIEoPDTF8Uq4NHMxoTP6s+8PpFH2JojXqQEUjq0gkhd4FnAxoows9F08D4o DUw9X2mznT1D1PJPj3DyPGAh9MSc07kxfmgo6QG6KDvEaMOnnVhDFNYsaZj2Ly805K/w 9l3283o5Ht4Ow2iYZTo2JSHGr6kAH3xH+D828=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.14.14.16 with SMTP id c16mr2596151eec.34.1321510454957; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 22:14:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.14.96.68 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 22:14:14 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <880C9B8D-9DCD-4ED7-8FA0-5BBDBB37E25E@tzi.org>
References: <CABOxzu0np9tCJgurrL6zCc1CpHd6KbrUdwnL5UocE6TM8a_G2w@mail.gmail.com> <4EC0E1FD.6050107@gmail.com> <4EC494EB.4070000@gmail.com> <880C9B8D-9DCD-4ED7-8FA0-5BBDBB37E25E@tzi.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 01:14:14 -0500
Message-ID: <CABOxzu1Rwj9Aa8oOZcqQDHVef52R04FcXBo6HwzCubvss=WGuw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Link-local IPv6 addresses in URIs
From: Kerry Lynn <kerlyn2001@gmail.com>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0016e656b5063c16fb04b1e82198"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 00:07:48 -0800
Cc: 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 06:14:21 -0000

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 12:13 AM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:

> On Nov 17, 2011, at 13:00, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> > Do people agree that this is a reasonable thing to do?
>
> Yes please!
>
> My ABNF is pretty rusty, so I offer the following extension to the RFC 3986
IPv6address rule only as a starting point:

/ "FE80::" [ *3( h16 ":" ) h16 ] [ "%" 1*4(ALPHA / DIGIT) ]

If we proceed with this, should we fix the IPv6address rule to align with
RFC 5952 or just make the minimal change?


> I trust that the update spec will explain the "for debugging" focus and
> will have appropriate warning


> -- that the link identifiers are node-local names with node-local
> semantics, and
> -- about security considerations, e.g., that this capability might be used
> to send packets to random links from malicious web pages unless properly
> restricted in a browser.
>
> You mean "specified links", right?  I still don't understand the security
risk
this poses, so maybe we could discuss it offline.

Thanks, -K-


> Grüße, Carsten
>
>