Re: IESG discuss: IPv6 Zone IDs

I have not heard from anybody about this issue, and I'm therefore
closing it.

Regards,    Martin.

At 17:01 04/11/16, Martin Duerst wrote:
 >
 >This is issue zoneid-48 at
 >http://www.w3.org/International/iri-edit/Overview.html#zoneid-48.
 >
 >Margaret Wasserman, in her 'discuss' at
 >https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=737&filename=draft-duerst-iri,
 >brought up the question of how IPv6 Zone IDs would
 >be represented in IRIs. After detailled discussion involving several
 >members of the IESG as well as several other experts, I think the
 >following were the conclusions we arrived at:
 >[please don't ask me what Zone IDs are :-]
 >
 >1) This is an issue that affects both the URI and the IRI spec, and
 >    should be fixed in parallel.
 >2) Given that use of Zone IDs will be rare (even rarer than use of
 >    IPv6 literals in general) in URIs and IRIs, and given that
 >    the IESG has already approved the URI draft, it seems unreasonable
 >    to hold back these drafts.
 >3) To make clear that Zone IDs are not handled (directly) by the current
 >    syntax, a sentence should be added to both the URI and the IRI draft
 >    to say so. Such a sentence will be added (as far as I understand)
 >    during the "Author's 24 hour review" period for the URI draft.
 >    For the IRI draft, I have added the sentence "This syntax does not
 >    support IPv6 scoped addressing zone identifiers." at the end of
 >    section 2.2. This tentatively closes this issue as far as this draft
 >    is concerned.
 >4) Even though the use of Zone IDs in URIs/IRIs shoud be very rare,
 >    because Zone IDs are really local to a specific machine, there are
 >    possible usage scenarios, in particular for configuration and network
 >    management, that make it worthwhile to define a syntax for Zone IDs
 >    in URIs/IRIs.
 >5) A new Internet Draft is being written by Bill Fenner and me to
 >    propose a syntax for Zone IDs in URIs/IRIs. We haven't figured
 >    out every detail yet, but I expect a submission soon. The basic
 >    idea of the draft is to use the IPvFuture production, which would
 >    lead to e.g. http://[v6.fe80::1234_1]/path/file.html.  The main
 >    technical detail to be resolved is the choice of separator for
 >    the ZoneID. The above example uses an '_'. I expect that we will
 >    announce this draft on uri@w3.org, but not on this list, because
 >    it is a generic URI syntax issue.
 >
 >
 >Regards,    Martin.
 >

Received on Monday, 29 November 2004 23:07:55 UTC