Re: [IPv6] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-6man-zone-ui-00.txt

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 06:59:09PM -0800, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > Has the Web browser development community come to a consensus that it is a
> > Bad Idea (TM)? That seems to be the case, but asking the Web Browser
> > community to help explain that consensus is also fair.
> >
> 
> See:
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27234#c2
> https://github.com/whatwg/url/issues/392 (see especially the comments from Anne Van Kesteren, formerly Mozilla, now Apple)

Threre is a nice blog that has been collecting these URLs and more info:

https://ungleich.ch/u/blog/ipv6-link-local-support-in-browsers/

but now also a few years old.

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-6man-rfc6874bis-02-artart-lc-thomson-2022-09-16/

What i am really missing from all this bickering is that nobody from that community is
providing any suggestion of how this could in their opinion be done better. Because
ultimately, it only boils down to not enough business case, go away. 

For example, would something like a new URL schema be better ?

   route:en0:http://...

?

I mean we have enough cases where one URL encodes another URL as a parameter,
it can't be that difficult to explain the most simple desirable way to do this
for the link selection problem. 


> Just like it is a bad idea for the IETF to dictate Zone Identifiers MUST be
> > included in URIs, it is equally bad for the browser community to say, no
> > way, no how, without a fairly detailed explanation.
> >
> 
> Well sort of. Generally, I think it's a good idea for implementors don't
> want to do things, but fundamentally the IETF has a rough consensus
> process, so at the end of the day if a big constituency doesn't want to do
> something, then that suggests we don't have rough consensus, whether the
> proponents of an idea find their reasons persuasive or not.

But the technical evaluation of the rough consensus should not only include
counting of con-hums, but judging whether there is a community of
interested users and technical reasons standing against it (such as better
technical solution). The interested users are not the implementers of the browsers,
but those who would use them (or any other application).

Cheers
    Toerless

> -Ekr
> 
> 
> 
> > Thanks.
> > --
> > ===============================================
> > David Farmer               Email:[e-mail]
> > Networking & Telecommunication Services
> > Office of Information Technology
> > University of Minnesota
> > 2218 University Ave SE        Phone: [phone]
> > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
> > ===============================================
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
> --------------------------------------------------------------------


-- 
---
[e-mail]