datatracker.ietf.org
Sign in
Version 5.3.0, 2014-04-12
Report a bug

Representing IPv6 Zone Identifiers in Address Literals and Uniform Resource Identifiers
draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-06

Approval Announcement

Draft of message to be sent after approval:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>,
    6man mailing list <ipv6@ietf.org>,
    6man chair <6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Representing IPv6 Zone Identifiers in Address Literals and Uniform Resource Identifiers' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-06.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Representing IPv6 Zone Identifiers in Address Literals and Uniform
   Resource Identifiers'
  (draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-06.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Brian Haberman and Ralph Droms.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid/



Technical Summary:

This document describes how the Zone Identifier of an IPv6 scoped
address can be represented in a literal IPv6 address and in a
Uniform Resource Identifier that includes such a literal address.
It updates RFC 3986 accordingly.

Working Group Summary:

Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example,
was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions
where the consensus was particularly rough?

As outlined in Appendix A of the document, the working group
considered many alternatives, and the document went through several
iterations as a result of consensus evolving. Of particular interest
may be that creating a new separator ("-") that would not conflict
with URI escaping was considered and rejected.

Document Quality:

Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant
number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification?
Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a
thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a
MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course
(briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the
request posted?

Dave Thaler from Microsoft and Stuart Chesire from Apple, made
significant reviews and jointly proposed text that would later reach
consensus.

Personnel:

Ole Troan is the Document Shepherd.
Brian Haberman is the Responsible Area Director.