Subject: About RFC 6874

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 08:20:29 +1200

So, reading the latest bugzilla update on this topic, I find
myself wondering whether RFC 6874 was such a good idea:

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

although I am not completely sure that we said YOLOSWAG
(which in this case I guess means You Only Live Once so
make a Scientific Wild A***d Guess.)

Regards
   Brian

---

From: Kerry Lynn <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:47:48 -0400

On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> I think the motivation was innocent enough; we'd like the equivalent
of 192.168.1.1 for configuring some future IPv6-only device.

As I said in the original bug report, this USED to work in Firefox.  I am
reminded that "perfect is the enemy of good".  It seems they could have
applied Pareto's Principal and made this work for the top three OSes
anyway...

Kerry

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

---

From: 神明達哉 <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 13:10:15 -0700

At Sat, 15 Aug 2015 08:20:29 +1200,

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

Among the reasons why they don't like to support it, the arguments
about the applicability and the underlying library issues don't seem
to be very strong or at least do seem to be debatable.  But the
requirement for transforming the URI is a real issue on any approach
of this kind (i.e., regardless of which delimiter character is used).
So, if they are not willing to do this transformation even if we can
convince them about the other two points, it's not just RFC6874 was
not a good idea, but it's that there will simply be no chance to
use a literal scoped address with its zone index in any way in
browsers.  As I'm not familiar with the w3c community I'm not sure if
we're in that situation, but my impression from the arguments in the
above link is that it's less likely that further discussion can change
their mind.  In that case it would be more productive for us to use
our time for something else.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 10:32:13 -0400

Hi all,

> our time for something else.

We do have a W3C liaison manager who we could work with to see what that
community is thinking in this space.  Our liaison manager is Mark
Nottingham and the IAB liaison shepherd for W3C is Ted Hardie.

Regards,
Brian