Subject: [apps-discuss] Review of draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-05

From: Yves Lafon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 09:56:42 -0500 (EST)

I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer for
this draft (for background on appsdir, please see
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-05
Title: IPv6 Zone Identifiers in Address Literals and Uniform Resource 
Identifiers
Reviewer: Yves Lafon
Review Date: 26 November 2012
IETF Last Call Date: 2012-11-23

Summary: The document is almost ready to progress, but some clarifications 
are needed on two points explicited below.

In section 3:
<<
    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.

Does it mean that such URIs can be present in an HTML document or that 
they MAY allow bare "%" signs when the URI is pasted in the address bar? 
(Those are two different use cases, and browsers may have different code 
paths for both).

In section 4:
It says
<<
    An HTTP server or proxy MUST ignore any ZoneID attached to an
    incoming URI, as it only has local significance at the sending host.

A proxy can be considered as a sending host, so does it mean that a the 
receiving end MUST strip all ZoneID before processing the request? (and it 
would be a significant change to implementations), or could this be 
resolved by mandating Web browser to strip ZoneID prior to sending the 
request as it is only significant for the sending host and as it is the 
implementation that needs to be updated to recognize the new syntax?

-- 
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

         ~~Yves

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 16:19:11 +0000

Yves,

On 26/11/2012 14:56, Yves Lafon wrote:
> Summary: The document is almost ready to progress, but some
> clarifications are needed on two points explicited below.
> 
> In section 3:
> <<

This is exactly why I suggested in the "New URL Standard..." thread
on the IETF list that we need a formal distinction between URI syntax
and the permitted "syntax" for user input strings. Without that
distinction, we are obliged to specify them both as if they were
the same thing. I really don't know how to capture this in the current
draft.

Since we do say that URIs with ZoneIDs are meaningless outside the
originating host, that would mean they shouldn't be included in HTML
documents IMHO. But I think somebody needs to rewrite RFC 3986.

> receiving end MUST strip all ZoneID before processing the request? (and
> it would be a significant change to implementations), or could this be

IMHO it would be safest if the sending host strips it. We could certainly
suggest that.

However, as the draft is on the IESG agenda this week, we won't update
it until we get all the IESG comments.

Thanks

    Brian

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:00:22 -0500

> the same thing. I really don't know how to capture this in the current

Perhaps it could be captured with something like this added to the
quoted paragraph?:

   Such bare "%" signs are for user interface convenience, and must be
   turned into properly escaped characters ("%25" encodes "%" in URIs)
   before the URI is used in any protocol.

> documents IMHO. But I think somebody needs to rewrite RFC 3986.

There's been some noise about that, both within and without the IETF.

Barry