Re: [v6ops] IPv6 link-local and URLs @ IETF119

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

Looping in Erik, the AD for the older of the two documents we're talking
about here.

On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 10:38 AM Murray S. Kucherawy <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> I may not be able to attend that session (HTTPBIS on Friday, according to
> its agenda) due to other conflicts.  I'll try to get free.  However, there
> are very likely to be people in that room able to represent the concern
> that was raised to me, such as in the ARTART review, which motivated my
> DISCUSS position.  I will reach out to them.
>
> -MSK
>
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 9:27 AM Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Dear v6ops
>>
>> You may want to think going to http(bis) WG this week for the slot on
>> draft-schinazi-httpbis-link-local-uri-bcp. In it, he argues that rfc6874
>> should be
>> retired/made-historic, because it was never implemented in browsers.
>>
>> For those who've been absent to the discussion:
>>   rfc6874 says URLs can represent IPv6 link-local addresses as
>> [<ipv6addr>:<zone-name>]
>>     and David Drafts lays out why this is difficult for browsers
>>   rfc6874bis was held up (indefinitely) by Murray (ART AD) on the prmise
>> that the
>>     browser vendors decided to not implement it rfc6874 nor bis.
>>   draft-carpenter-6man-zone-ui from Brian Carpenter was receiving various
>> criticisms in 6MAN,
>>     leading to David to write his draft. Where he primarily promotes to
>> use .local mDNS
>>     instead of IPv6 link local addresses
>>
>> My take on this:
>>
>> 1. The only poor souls who should ever have to use IPv6 link-local
>> addresses in a browser
>>    field are IPv6 Network Opertors (aka: here, this group), when
>> interacting in a browser
>>    with a router (e.g.:web interface off a browser) and entering URLs.
>> Everybody else
>>    should use names (including .local), so it is certainly a minority
>> use-case, but
>>    i would hope an important minority use-case. Without network admins
>> being able to
>>    troubleshoot even if/where DNS is not working, we can not provide
>> running IPv6 networks.
>>
>> 2. I find Murray's DISCUSS on rfc6874bis not convincing, because scoped
>> IPv6 link-local
>>    addresses in URLs are not only needed for browsers, but for any type
>> of API in programming
>>    languages that use URI, such as restconf or the like. Besides, i do
>> not see why we as
>>    the IETF should constrict what we deem to be necessary by the
>> implementation problems
>>    of effectively very few browser cores in the industry, neglecting the
>> broader use
>>    of URLs. The argument alone that the IETF should not be able to demand
>> what's needed
>>    for an IPv6 network archtiecture because some application land work is
>> hard is just
>>    what has continued to slow down adoption of anything IPv6 for now 2
>> decades.
>>
>> 3. That being said, i would love to see Davids draft progress to help
>> eliminate the
>>    non-working of .local addresses in Browsers today (aka: create
>> standadrd/demand for
>>    mDNS in browsers to work), because they actually do have a good
>>    amount of actual really cool IoT use-cases (not v6ops). I just don't
>> want the work to call
>>    for retiring rfc6874. I just want it for rfc6874 to become only
>> necessary where no other
>>    option helps.
>>
>> Cheers
>>     Toerless
>>
>