Re: [IPv6] [Last-Call] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc6874bis-02

Hello Larry,

On 2023-03-27 00:56, Larry Masinter wrote:
> I asked for a brief explanation. The response explains, albeit not directly.
> 
> I regret going down this path with RFC 2732: Format for Literal IPv6
> Addresses in URL's (rfc-editor.org) <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2732>
> If I had do-overs (in another universe) I would have pushed harder

Can you tell us what you would have done?

Regards,   Martin.


> The Compatibility Dilemma (ietf.org)
> <https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/47/slides/idn-url-00mar/sld003.htm>
> 
> On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 5:10 AM Michael Sweet <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> Another point: there are other URI schemes that benefit from this work,
>> not the least of which are “ipp” and “ipps”, which are used by billions of
>> printers and client devices worldwide. This is really an edge case for
>> supporting access to devices when the preferred mechanism (mDNS hostnames)
>> is not available.
>>
>> So I really don’t want and don’t support pushing for new URI schemes.
>>
>> ____________________
>> Michael Sweet
>>
>>> On Mar 26, 2023, at 2:34 AM, Brian E Carpenter <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> It's simply irrelevant to the use cases, which are all well-established
>> uses of http: and https:. Nobody has any need of a new scheme for these use
>> cases.
>>>
>>> Also, the URI will still have to be parsed. I don't see how it changes
>> anything, unless you imagine that browser implementers will write new
>> parsers just for this.
>>>
>>> There's running code proof that by adding the appropriate case to an
>> existing parser, the proposal just works. At this point I am baffled by
>> this new suggestion.
>>>
>>> My question at the moment is a simple one: which of the points raised in
>> the ART review are not answered in the latest posted draft?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>    Brian Carpenter
>>>
>>>> On 26-Mar-23 18:10, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
>>>> Hello Brian, others,
>>>>> On 2023-03-26 13:54, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>>>> We seem to be in different universes here.
>>>> Good to know. Actually, Martin Thomson and me discussed the possibility
>>>> of (a) dedicated scheme(s) as an alternative just this morning. It might
>>>> be possible to avoid quite a bit of the issues that Martin brought up in
>>>> his review.
>>>> Regards,   Martin.
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>      Brian Carpenter
>>>>>

_______________________________________________
art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art