[Last-Call] LC feedback on draft-ietf-6man-rfc6874bis

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

Hello,

I appreciate the effort that the authors and WG have put into this document, and I don't have any substantial technical issues with the document as written (although I have not reviewed it deeply).

That said, the IESG needs to consider this publication carefully. The targeted implementers (web browsers) have very clearly said they will not be implementing. From their issue of record:

> Overall, our internal consensus is that <zone_id>'s are bonkers on many grounds - the technical ambiguity (and RFC 6874 doesn't really resolve the ambiguity as much as it fully owns it and just says #YOLOSWAG) - and supporting them would add a lot of complexity for what is explicitly and admittedly a limited value use case.

-- <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27234#c2>

And, in their URL specification:

> Support for <zone_id> is intentionally omitted.

-- <https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#host-representation>

This is not just a question of getting them interested, nor one of resourcing. As their discussion points out, there are likely a number of additional security and user interface issues which would need to be addressed.

The Shepherd Writeup says that has been circulated with the W3C TAG, the HTTP WG, and the ART area. 

The TAG review was requested less than an hour ago:
  https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/774

At a minimum, the IESG should allow that process to complete. Given the size of their queue, this may take some time.

In the HTTP WG, I only see two relevant messages:
  https://www.w3.org/mid/[e-mail]
I wouldn't characterise this as a review.

I couldn't find any relevant messages on the ART list in the last two years. If I've missed something in either case, pointers would be appreciated.

The questions that I think the IESG needs to address in evaluating this document are:

1. Should we be publishing a document where there is zero demonstrated implementation interest, and furthermore significant implementer concerns (as outlined above)?
2. Should lower-layer WGs be documenting how higher-layer protocols actually use the lower layer constructs, without buy-in or substantial review from those higher layer communities?
3. If so, what precedent does that set for the network determining how applications use it? Here, I'm particularly concerned about the struggles regarding security and privacy between the layers.
4. Given the above, will publishing this document impact the IETF's credibility/legitimacy in the eyes of browser implementers and other communities?

Cheers,


--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/