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

From: Bill Fenner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 12:16:48 -0400

>So, I guess the appropriate next step for this work is to make
>consensus on this, which mostly equals to my question -1:
>
>  -1. are we okay with forcing URL/URI parsers to understand the
>      detailed semantics of the scoped address syntax and to strip the
>      zone ID (+ delimiter) part by itself for the reason because the
>      parsers would already need to do some extra work for the special
>      syntax?

Obviously, since I proposed it, I'm OK with it.  I haven't seen anyone
else with an opinion.

Overall, I've seen a handful of "I need this" and one "I've
implemented this", lots of misunderstanding about what the
proposal is, and a handful of "There's no use for this."
There's been some discussion of what the seperator character
should be, which is fine but irrelevant if the answer to the bigger
question is "no".

Since the majority of the comments since the IETF meeting have
been negative, I'm inclined to drop this work.  I still think it's
necessary, but if the major players in the WG push against it then
I'm not going to pursue it.

  Bill

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:27:59 +0900

>>>>> On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 12:16:48 -0400, 
>>>>> Bill Fenner <[email-masked]> said:

> I'm not going to pursue it.

To be clear, I'm not necessarily negative about the goal of this
proposal now that (I believe) I understand the point correctly.  In
the beginning of the discussion, I didn't understand the proposal
assumed additional requirements for URL/URI parsers, so I didn't
understand its usefulness.  **If we can allow that**, I see this can
be useful, while it should be minor usage, with your scenario of
configuring a cheap access router using a web interface and router's
link-local address.  But I simply could not believe the majority of
this group would allow that, considering the fact that the majority
was very eager to kill site-local addresses, saying "never force
applications to do any additional work to deal with scopes".   Hence,
"question -1" above.

I don't have a strong opinion about the 'bigger question', but if I
were to answer it with yes-or-no, I'd say yes I'm okay.

As you pointed out, we've actually not seen many opinions on the
bigger question.  I'm not sure how we can interpret this silence, but
if we can declare acceptance with "no objection and one or a few
positive responses", it may make sense to proceed to the next step.

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

---

From: Bill Fenner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 18:21:26 -0700

>...I didn't understand the proposal
>be useful, while it should be minor usage ...

Certainly, it's envisioned to be a small niche, which is why I am
not ready to push too hard on it.

>..."never force
>applications to do any additional work to deal with scopes".

I think the push against additional work was really about addresses
that look (more or less) the same requiring different handling, e.g., an
application would have to know that fec0::1 needed a zone ID but 2002::1
did not.  Since my proposal uses an explicitly different syntax, and
all addresses expressed using this syntax require the zone ID, I *think*
that argument doesn't apply.

  Bill