Re: [IPv6] [Last-Call] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc6874bis-02
David Farmer <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.apps-discuss,gmane.ietf.ipv6 |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAN-Dau1_Mc1fTamqc5RZaFitc=7BL_0b004MZvuXyTqmpD1xyw@mail.gmail.com> |
On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 17:51 Rob Sayre <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 3:44 PM Brian E Carpenter < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> In what way does it "break" existing parsers? They simply return an >> error. Why is that a problem? As discussed at >> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-6man-rfc6874bis-05.html#section-4-1, >> this is completely compatible with stepwise deployment as and when needed. >> >> Yes, it becomes a feature request for existing parsers. And it will only >> get implemented when the need is irresistible. No different from any other >> feature request. >> > > I think the general issue is that some of them are looking for the > "authority" component, and relying on the uniform syntax here. Maybe it's > worth breaking that for this feature, but it's not a made-up issue. I still > look at it and think "why?", though. > So, I’ll bite, why does this syntax interfere with? If anything, because IPv6 literals with Zone IDs are contained within square parentheses “[“,”]”, therefore determining the authority should be easy. Example: http://[fe80::1234%en0]:8080/path-p1/p2 Please explain how it interferes with determining a URI’s “authority” component. Thanks -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:[email protected] Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== _______________________________________________ art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art