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

Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> Thu, 12 July 2012 19:47 UTC

Return-Path: <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
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 5CFFF21F8688 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 12:47:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.533
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vSMjOofeq7J4 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 12:47:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000:226:55ff:fe57:14db]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 427C221F861A for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 12:47:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from porto.nomis80.org (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:230:c000:3e97:eff:fe0b:dd8a]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 052D4414A7 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 15:47:46 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <4FFF29E2.6090909@viagenie.ca>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 15:47:46 -0400
From: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120615 Thunderbird/13.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-02.txt]
References: <4FFD71D7.4070209@gmail.com> <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B6BF582@TK5EX14MBXW603.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B6BF582@TK5EX14MBXW603.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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, 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.

Suggestion:
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.

Simon
-- 
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca