Subject: RE: Move forward with scoped literal URI format?

From: "Li, Qing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 11:26:01 -0800

> 
> 0. Should we solve this problem at all?
> 

  Yes.

  Our boxes are shipped with a console port but the preferred 
  manual configuration method is through the browser. The
  preference is to plug the device onto the network and open
  the browser and type

  http://[v6.fe80::cafe:f00d???fxp0]:8081

  to get the Java based management console.

> 
> 1. Should we proceed using "_" (or some other non-percent character)?
> 2. If not, should we proceed using "%25"?
> 3. If not, should we proceed using "%"?
> 

  I'd prefer having a character other than "_" but not keen on 
  maintaining the "%" for the copy+paste sake.

  -- Qing

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉<[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:08:50 +0900

>>>>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 11:26:01 -0800, 
>>>>> "Li, Qing" <[email-masked]> said:

>   to get the Java based management console.

As I said in the previous message, this example cannot be the reason
for answering YES to question 0, at least to me, or at least in the
original sense of RFC4007.

If we are going to invent something different beyond the scope of
RFC4007, the conclusion may differ, of course.

Perhaps we need the -1th question in the first place:

  -1. are we going to force URL/URI parsers to understand the detailed
      semantics of the scoped address syntax and to strip the zone ID
      (+ delimiter) part by itself, which is against the sense of
      RFC4007?

If the consensus on this question is YES, then we can also say YES to
the 0th question with this example.

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					[email-masked]