[IPv6]Re: draft-carpenter-6man-zone-ui: Call for Adoption

[David Schinazi <[e-mail]>]

A potential suggestion for wording would be to add an explicit sentence at
the end of last paragraph of Section 3:

"In this model, the zone identifier is considered independently of the IPv6
address itself, and thus in the case of a web browser would not be
considered part of a URL. However, this does not in itself resolve the
difficulties in considering the zone identifier as part of the HTTP origin
model [RFC6454]. Therefore, this approach does not resolve the issue of how
browsers should support link-local addresses, discussed further in
[I-D.schinazi-httpbis-link-local-uri-bcp]. Because of this, the
recommendations and normative statements in this document do not apply to
web browsers."

I do think this is needed, because otherwise this document fails to capture
the research already performed by the browser community into whether it
could implement the SHOULD in this draft. And that could lead to confusion
during another round of feature requests using this document as motivation.

David


On Sun, Jun 2, 2024 at 2:47 PM Brian E Carpenter <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 30-May-24 16:11, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
> > I support adoption under the assumption that we will address browser
> > concerns (as expressed by David Schinazi) to their satisfaction,
>
> I'd be interested in specific suggestions for the wording, since
> the text already says:
>
> "This document obsoletes [RFC6874], which implementors
> of web browsers have determined is impracticable to support..."
>
> and
>
> "Therefore, this approach
> does not resolve the issue of how browsers should support link-local
> addresses..."
>
> So what else is needed? The whole specification is a BCP14 SHOULD,
> which means that there
> "may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
> particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
> carefully weighed before choosing a different course."
> That is exactly what the browser implementors have already done.
>
> > and
> > that we see this as a first step to improving the situation with zone
> > identifiers in general (as expressed e.g. by David Farner).
>
> I agree. Personally I won't take the lead on 4007bis effort, but I'm
> sure it's needed.
>
> >
> > The reason I support adoption is that if published, this will obsolete
> > RFC 6874, which we know was wishful thinking.
>
> Sadly, yes.
>
>       Brian
>
> >
> > Regards,   Martin.
> >
> > On 2024-05-28 00:55, Jen Linkova wrote:
> >> This email starts an adoption call for the following document:
> >>
> >> Title : Entering IPv6 Zone Identifiers in User Interfaces
> >> Authors : B. Carpenter, R. Hinden
> >> Pages : 9
> >> Date : 2024-03-31
> >>
> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-carpenter-6man-zone-ui/
> >>
> >> Please note that the draft in question is a continuation of the work
> >> done in draft-ietf-6man-rfc6874bis which was adopted by this WG
> >> previously.
> >>
> >> Substantive comments, statements of support for adopting this
> >> document or objections to the adoption should be sent to the mailing
> >> list.  Editorial suggestions can be sent to the authors.
> >> .
> >> This adoption call will end on June 12th 2024.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Ole & Jen
> >>
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> Administrative Requests:
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > Administrative Requests:
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>