Subject: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-6man-rfc6874bis-03.txt

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2022 09:28:54 +1300

Hi,

The authors of this draft did, as previously mentioned, open discussion
with various people in the browser community, but we did not find much
enthusiasm for implementation. Until there is a great increase in demand
for link-locals to be supported by browsers, the necessary work seems
unlikely to be done.

However, we believe that this demand will eventually arise and therefore
it's important that the relevant URI syntax is well-defined. Therefore,
we've updated the draft. Apart from editorial improvements, there is a
significant change in this version. Following the discussions a few months
ago, and after I spent some time looking into the URI parsers in wget and
Firefox (and a brief look at curl), we propose to drop the "%25" encoding
of "%". The ABNF in this version, originally suggested by Andrew Cady,
reflects that proposal. There is extra explanation in the text.

The other signficant change is that, as Martin Dürst pointed out, we 
also
need to formally update the IRI syntax. That was an omission in RFC6874.

It may be time to consider WG adoption of this draft.

Regards
     Brian & co-authors

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-6man-rfc6874bis-03.txt
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2022 12:06:42 -0800
From: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.

         Title           : Representing IPv6 Zone Identifiers in Address Literals and Uniform Resource Identifiers
         Authors         : Brian Carpenter
                           Stuart Cheshire
                           Robert M. Hinden
	Filename        : draft-carpenter-6man-rfc6874bis-03.txt
	Pages           : 11
	Date            : 2022-02-08

Abstract:
    This document describes how the zone identifier of an IPv6 scoped
    address, defined as <zone_id> in the IPv6 Scoped Address Architecture
    (RFC 4007), can be represented in a literal IPv6 address and in a
    Uniform Resource Identifier that includes such a literal address.  It
    updates the URI Generic Syntax and Internationalized Resource
    Identifier specifications (RFC 3986, RFC 3987) accordingly, and
    obsoletes RFC 6874.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-carpenter-6man-rfc6874bis/

There is also an HTML version available at:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-carpenter-6man-rfc6874bis-03.html

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-carpenter-6man-rfc6874bis-03

Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts

_______________________________________________
I-D-Announce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

---

From: Nick Hilliard <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2022 21:29:33 +0000

Brian E Carpenter wrote on 08/02/2022 20:28:
> Following the discussions a few months

As long as the format can be parsed unambiguously according to a spec, 
this sounds like a good thing.

Example: what does "[fe80::12%30]" mean?

"[fe80::12%30]", i.e. fe80::12 scoped to zone 30, or "[fe80::120]"?

Nick

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2022 10:48:25 +1300

> "[fe80::12%30]", i.e. fe80::12 scoped to zone 30, or "[fe80::120]"?

Definitely the first. That is unambiguous in the (new) ABNF. Of course,
there is no common code that all parsers share, but from the code I've
looked at there really isn't going to be a coding problem either.
Literal IP addresses get special handling anyway. (I gave up on
trying to patch the Firefox parser due to its complexity, but there's
no doubt in my mind that it can be done.)

    Brian

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2022 08:19:05 +0000

Hi Brian,

Given the substantive change and the additional update to the IRI syntax,
may I suggest you bring the updated draft to DISPATCH, so that the folks
more on the URI side of the house are aware of the changes?  There also
might be a dispatch action to carry additional discussion to one of the
more ART-centric groups.

regards,

Ted Hardie

On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 8:30 PM Brian E Carpenter <
[email-masked]> wrote:

>          Title           : Representing IPv6 Zone Identifiers in Address
> Literals and Uniform Resource Identifiers
> Internet-Draft
> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announceInternet-Draft>
> directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [email-masked]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---

From: Brian Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2022 22:21:45 +1300

Hi Ted,

That makes sense. Maybe we should wait a few days for reactions from 6man.

Regards,
    Brian Carpenter
    (via tiny screen & keyboard)

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2022 08:40:08 +1300

Hi Ole,

We'd like to request WG adoption of this draft, since there have been
no adverse reactions to the latest version.

We don't feel it needs a discussion slot at the upcoming meeting, since
it's been discussed before. But of course we'd welcome discussion here
on the list.

Regards
    Brian Carpenter

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 17:12:17 -0500

> no adverse reactions to the latest version.

While I think that it is important that we get this problem solved, I'm not
convinced that without some of the browser community involved, we will do
anything.

However, I prefer to adopt a good draft than polish it on the side.

What we also need is some additional champions for this document: people to
can talk about it at W3C, (in person when that's a thing).

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2022 08:59:31 +1300

Hi Michael,

> convinced that without some of the browser community involved, we will do

 From our outreach so far, I am pretty certain that nothing will happen on
the browser, WHATWG or W3C side until there is substantial operational
pressure for this *necessary* feature. I'd rather have the RFC on record
before that happens, because it might still be several years in the future.
At least that way, the requirement will be well defined.
  
> However, I prefer to adopt a good draft than polish it on the side.

Exactly.

> can talk about it at W3C, (in person when that's a thing).

It's my impression that WHATWG is more important in terms of the browser community.

Regards
    Brian

---

From: Vasilenko Eduard <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2022 08:54:31 +0000

Hi all,
The problem is important. It is better to say it formally: give the draft the status "WG draft".
For more people to see the problem. Because many people do not pay much attention to personal drafts - they just do not have time to monitor everything.
Then not be in a hurry to progress it to RFC because it is not clear yet how to involve browsers developers.
I hope it is not a problem if something would stay as WG draft longer than typical.

Hi Brian,
it is better to make a small presentation on IETF for the same purpose: to increase other people's awareness about the problem.
For decades, I did not participate in IETF, but I did always look to presentations from the latest IETF. I am sure that many people do not read this alias, but look to all IETF presentations.
As you said, only the market pressure could push browsers developers. Hence, the market should be aware that the problem exists.
A small presentation on the IETF is the one way for the market to be aware.

Eduard
-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6 [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2022 11:00 PM
To: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>; Ole Trøan <[email-masked]>; 6man <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Requesting WG adoption of draft-carpenter-6man-rfc6874bis-03

Hi Michael,

On 19-Feb-22 11:12, Michael Richardson wrote:
> While I think that it is important that we get this problem solved, 
> I'm not convinced that without some of the browser community involved, 
> we will do anything.

 From our outreach so far, I am pretty certain that nothing will happen on the browser, WHATWG or W3C side until there is substantial operational pressure for this *necessary* feature. I'd rather have the RFC on record before that happens, because it might still be several years in the future.
At least that way, the requirement will be well defined.

Exactly.

> 
> What we also need is some additional champions for this document: 
> people to can talk about it at W3C, (in person when that's a thing).

Regards
    Brian

---

From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2022 16:41:46 +0000

I agree with Eduard here.

Even if there's no guarantee that the draft is implemented, at least the IETF will have done its part in making it happen, and there will be one existing reference format for any stack that wishes to implement something. The rest is beyond our control.

Bottom line: I believe that Brian's proposal is needed, makes sense, and I support adoption.

Keep safe;

Pascal

> From: ipv6 <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Vasilenko Eduard
> Sent: lundi 21 février 2022 9:55
> To: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>; 6man <[email-masked]>
> Subject: RE: Requesting WG adoption of draft-carpenter-6man-rfc6874bis-03
> 
> Hi all,
> For more people to see the problem. Because many people do not pay much
> attention to personal drafts - they just do not have time to monitor
> everything.
> it is better to make a small presentation on IETF for the same purpose: to
> increase other people's awareness about the problem.
> For decades, I did not participate in IETF, but I did always look to
> presentations from the latest IETF. I am sure that many people do not read
> this alias, but look to all IETF presentations.
> As you said, only the market pressure could push browsers developers.
> Hence, the market should be aware that the problem exists.
> To: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>; Ole Trøan
> <[email-masked]>; 6man <[email-masked]>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2022 11:17:26 +1300

Hi Ole,

Could we have a WG slot for this draft, since there have been some
changes since the previous presentation?

Probably 10 min max for presentation.

(I will not be attending personally but one of the co-authors can
present.)

Regards
    Brian

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2022 12:15:35 +0100

Dear Brian,

> changes since the previous presentation?

Yes, added to the requests list.
I also did a call for adoption for this document, so we can use this slot to discuss any open issues from that too.

> (I will not be attending personally but one of the co-authors can

Given that the meeting is hybrid, using the remote participitation tools. Presenting remote is fine too.

Best regards,
Ole