Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-05

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 12:22:21 -0800

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
  <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-05
Reviewer: Martin Thomson
Review Date: 2012-11-16
IETF LC End Date:  2012-11-26
IESG Telechat date: not scheduled

Summary:  This document is ready for publication as Proposed Standard,
with nits.

Nits/editorial comments:

The document could be made shorter by removing:

   We now present the necessary formal syntax.

   The 6man WG discussed and rejected an alternative in which the
   existing syntax of IPv6address would be extended by an option to add
   the ZoneID only for the case of link-local addresses.  It was felt
   that the present solution offers more flexibility for future uses and
   is more straightforward to implement.

This latter text might be put in the appendix, if it is necessary at
all.  The text in the security considerations is probably adequate.

The following statement implies "special" processing for zone IDs at user input:

   This document implies that all browsers should recognise a ZoneID
   preceded by an escaped "%".  In the spirit of "be liberal with what
   you accept", we also recommend that URI parsers accept bare "%" signs
   (i.e., a "%" not followed by two valid hexadecimal characters).  This
   makes it easy for a user to copy and paste a string such as
   "fe80::a%en1" from the output of a "ping" command and have it work.

Even though 01 is " two valid hexadecimal characters", U+01 is not a
valid URI character at that position.  Thus, the range of inferred
zone IDs is (potentially) larger than the text implies.

Browsers frequently accept (and display) URIs with unescaped parts.
This is just another example of that common logic.  Thus, this might
be phrased more simply as:

   Software that accepts URIs with unescaped portions can permit the
   entry of IPv6 addresses with an unescaped zone separator.

This allows implementations to infer behaviour, which is probably OK
in this context.

s/proxy/intermediary/

In the appendix, it might be worth noting that option 3 was selected.

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 13:28:16 -0800

Try again, this time with the right recipients.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 08:16:48 +0000

Martin,

Thanks for the review, comments in-line.

>> all.  The text in the security considerations is probably adequate.

There was quite a lot of discussion of this point in the WG, so
it seems best to record it. I agree it would fite in the appendix.

>> valid URI character at that position.  Thus, the range of inferred

I don't quite understand that. RFC3986 section 2.1 says
  pct-encoded = "%" HEXDIG HEXDIG
with no restrictions on HEXDIG, so why is %01 disallowed?
(I agree it would be meaningless, but that's another matter).

>> This allows implementations to infer behaviour, which is probably OK

But it's very murky, as per the recent discussion under
"[whatwg] New URL Standard...".

>> s/proxy/intermediary/

proxy or other intermediary?

>> In the appendix, it might be worth noting that option 3 was selected.

OK

   Brian
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
>

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2012 19:25:20 -0800

> (I agree it would be meaningless, but that's another matter).

Meaningless is precisely my point.  It's unclear what is exactly the
right behaviour in this situation, so hedging on the vague side,
inadvisable as that normally is, might be safest.

> proxy or other intermediary?

Exactly.

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 09:24:12 -0500

I do not see changes based on this discussion.  There should be some, right?

Russ

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 15:02:48 +0000

Russ, there are changes needed from this and other reviews, and IMHO
some of them need to go back to the WG. I wouldn't be comfortable
asserting that they are editorial.

Personally I'd be happy with Revised I-D Needed, with or without a DISCUSS.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 09:46:35 -0800

> Personally I'd be happy with Revised I-D Needed, with or without a DISCUSS.

With my w.g. chair hat on, I think there have been enough changes that the w.g. should review it once we have a version that resolves the IESG discusses/comments/etc.  

Bob