Re: RFC 2732 and Zone IDs

[Margaret Wasserman <margaret@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 1:12 PM +0200 10/30/04, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >  Because it has no *reasonable* use? Is it reasonable to use HTTP this way?
> >  It doesn't really bother me that it isn't covered by the latest URI syntax
> >  (and therefore not by IRI syntax). I must say I have largely ignored
> >  the whole scoped address debate, so I missed this when we did the original
> >  work on RFC 2732.

Brian originally made this statement in an exchange with some URI/IRI 
authors/experts and the IESG regarding my "discuss" position on 
draft-duerst-iri-10.txt.  My response was:

"I don't know.  A year ago, I would have said "no", but with 
documents on the IESG agenda like draft-black-snmp-uri-08.txt, I am 
taking a new view of URIs.  This document defines a URI syntax that 
can be used for access to SNMP objects, and one of the use cases 
includes having a local SNMP manager that is accessed through a URI 
-- the URI then being translated into an SNMP request that is sent to 
the agent via SNMP.

So, URIs can, effectively, be used as a programmatic interface to 
other applications running on the local system.  In that sort of 
case, I think we very well might need to include scoped addresses in 
URIs.  And, IMO, it would be better to have a standard way to do this 
than to live in a world where folks just insert an unencoded % and 
some parsers pass it through cleanly, others escape it for you and 
still others return an error -- which is how the current behaviour of 
URI parsers has been described in this thread."

BTW, I don't think it was a mistake to omit this when RFC 2732 was 
published, as the IPv6 Scoped Address Architecture (which defines 
zone IDs) was only recently approved by the IESG for publication at 
PS.

> In any case this is a dead duck, unless the IESG wants to recall 2396bis
> from the RFC Editor, which seems absolutely unjustified to me.

The discussion with the URI/IRI authors doesn't seem to be moving in 
the direction of recalling 2396bis.  It seems preferable to write a 
new document that defines an IPv6 address encoding that includes a 
zone ID.  This could be done under the IPvFuture mechanism described 
in 2396bis.

I'm certainly willing to let the URI/IRI folks figure out the best 
way to fix this problem, but I don't understand how the fact that 
2396bis is in the RFC editor queue makes this problem a "dead duck". 
In fact, I'm not sure I understand what "this" is referring to in the 
sentence above.

I don't know exactly where this will end up, but given the fact that 
2396bis will obsolete RFC 2732 when it is published (which I didn't 
realize when I started this thread), I agree that an update to RFC 
2732 doesn't make sense.

Margaret




--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@xxxxxxxx
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------