Re: [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-02.txt]

Simon Perreault <> Thu, 12 July 2012 19:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CFFF21F8688 for <>; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 12:47:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.533
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.533 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.067, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTTP_ESCAPED_HOST=0.134, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vSMjOofeq7J4 for <>; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 12:47:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000:226:55ff:fe57:14db]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 427C221F861A for <>; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 12:47:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:230:c000:3e97:eff:fe0b:dd8a]) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 052D4414A7 for <>; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 15:47:46 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 15:47:46 -0400
From: Simon Perreault <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120615 Thunderbird/13.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-02.txt]
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 19:47:17 -0000

On 07/12/2012 03:16 PM, Dave Thaler wrote:
> Because it's completely unpredictable without having
> browser-specific knowledge which I think is inappropriate here, I
> don't think it should recommend either one.   Making a recommendation
> in this document will just increase the likelihood of interoperability
> problems as people start passing URIs like "http://[fe80::1%251]/"
> into APIs and files without knowing how it'll be interpreted by the
> broad base of already deployed apps and libraries.   We don't want
> to make the situation worse, and this sort of recommendation just
> makes the current bad situation worse.

On input, applications MUST accept the formal syntax and MAY accept 
another syntax.
On output, applications MUST use the formal syntax and MUST NOT use 
another syntax.

For example, when a user pastes "http://[fe80::1%251]", the browser 
interprets however it wants, turns it into either "http://[fe80::1-251]" 
or "http://[fe80::1-1]", and displays that in the address bar.

DTN made easy, lean, and smart -->
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        -->
STUN/TURN server               -->