[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: An Internet-Draft on literal scoped addresses with accompanying zone IDs in URIs



>>>>> On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 19:03:51 -0800, 
>>>>> "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@xxxxxxxx> said:

> I don't think that they are actively used for significant operations.
> Yes, they are implemented (inconsistently) on multiple platforms
> (some allow names to occur after the '%", while others assume that
> the zone ID will be a small integer),

(a minor note) draft-ietf-ipv6-scoping-arch-02.txt specifies integers
as the minimum set of scope zone IDs that all implementations must
support.  All compliant specifications must accept decimal integers,
and *BSDs should behave so, although it prints attached interface name
by default.

> There is nothing we can do in the specifications to change the
> fact that using a % as a zone ID separator in URIs will result in
> interoperability failures.  Those applications are already deployed.
> It would be easier to change all of the deployed operating systems
> that contain IPv6 to allow an additional delimiter character if
> cut-and-paste is really important.

I don't buy this argument.  We can also say that system libraries with
'%' '%' as the delimiter and applications using the libraries are
already deployed.  As others already said, BSDs have been using for
several years, which is also merged into MacOS X.  In addition, as far
as I know recent versions of Windows and Linux implementations adopt
this specification.  I would say that saying "these are not actively
used for significant operations." is misleading.  First of all, what
"significant operations" mean is really not clear.  Additionally, why
can we be so sure that they are not actively used without knowing how
real IPv6 operators do or do not use the syntax?  As an IPv6 operator,
I often use this notation for diagnosing IPv6 routers or in some cases
DHCPv6/DNS servers.

I'm not insisting that we can ignore the deployed parser that are not
friendly with the '%' delimiter.  I just want to note that we cannot
simply say "XXX is not so deployed so it would be easier to fix it",
whether the XXX is existing systems with the % delimiter or existing
parsers which are unfriendly with the '%' delimiter.

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					jinmei@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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