Representing IPv6 Zone Identifiers in Address Literals and Uniform Resource Identifiers
draft-ietf-6man-rfc6874bis-09

Closing out this document and its approach.

Moving forward by considering:

* [draft-carpenter-6man-zone-ui](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-carpenter-6man-zone-ui/) and
* [draft-schinazi-httpbis-link-local-uri-bcp](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-schinazi-httpbis-link-local-uri-bcp/)

as starting points.

1. Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as a
  work item there?

The document was only considered by 6MAN WG.

2. Was there controversy about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt
  the document?

There was no such controversy.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

Previous text: "Nobody threatened an appeal."
Oct 10 2023 update: There are threats of appeal, the responsible AD is aware of the situation.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

There is a proof-of-concept implementation for Linux wget: https://github.com/becarpenter/wget6
The feature request for Firefox (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=700999#c94) has been reopened and acknowledged by the developers with the intention to implement it.
Internet Explorer supported link-local addresses but that browser is getting deprecated).
Feature requests were opened to implement what the draft proposes (e.g. https://github.com/whatwg/url/issues/392).


#t Additional Reviews
5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

The following reviews were requested in parallel with the IETF Last Call:

*  W3TAG design review: https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/774#issuecomment-1244703046
*  URI-review
*  art@ietf.org
*  HTTP WG review

--- Resp. AD update ---

* Some concerns were raised in external reviews, mainly about not wanting to implement anything having to do with IPv6 link-local addresses in the browser.
* All stated concerns seem to be equally applicable to RFC 6874 itself.
* This document does have propose improvements that are useful, even if only initially of use to command line utilities.

---

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

See the answer to #5.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

The document doesn't contain any YANG module.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

BNF validity was verified by inserting the BNF rules from this document into the full RFC3986 ABNF and
running the ABNF checker. The checker produced no errors (and one warning that also applies to the unmodified RFC3986 version).

## Document Shepherd Checks
9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

The shepherd believes that the document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

As the document describes how IPv6 zone identifier can be represented in URIs, reviews from subject matter experts have been requested (see the answer to #5).


11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The document intended status is 'Proposed Standard' because the document is a -bis version of the RFC6874 published as Proposed Standard.
The datatracker shows the intended status as 'Proposed Standard' as well.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][8]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

All authors confirmed that they are aware of no relevant IPR. There were no disclosures against RFC6874 itself.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes, all authors and contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed.
The total number of authors is 3.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

Remaining nits:
-  idnits tool complains that the draft header indicates that this document updates RFC3986 and  RFC3987, but the
    abstract doesn't seem to directly say this". Actually the abstract does say that explicitly so this nit doesn't apply.
- "The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work". As the original authors of RFC6874 and the authors of this -bis document are the same people
this nit is not applicable.

- "The document date (5 July 2022) is 34 days in the past" - this is intentional.


15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No, I do not think any changes in the references are needed.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

All normative references are RFCs, hence freely available to anyone.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

There are no normative downward references.


18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

All normative references are either Internet Standard, Proposed Standard or BCP (RFC8174). No downward references.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

Publication of this document obsoletes RFC6874. The metadata reflects that change, as well as the fact that this document updates RFC3986 and RFC3987.
The abstract explicitly mentions those changes.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The document does not introduces any IANA considerations.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

No new IANA registries or allocations are introduced.

Appendix. The timeline of events since the IETF Last Call

* IETF last call ended 2022-09-26

* draft-ietf-6man-rfc6874bis-03, 2022-09-30:
Strengthened motivation for publishing this requirement now.
Removed unnecessary sentence about browsers.
Noted that zone ID will be revealed to HTTP server.
Noted that servers should make no use of received zone IDs.
Noted that zone IDs have no length limit.
Added section on scope and deployment, specifically noting that URIs with local scope are nothing new.
Other Last Call clarifications and nits.

* draft-ietf-6man-rfc6874bis-04, 2022-10-19:
Suggested maximum length of zone ID.

* W3C tag review requested 2022-10-20

* W3C tag review rather negative 2022-11-24
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/774#issuecomment-1326433378

* On IESG agenda for 2023-03-16

* Two DISCUSSes placed on 2023-03-16

* Side meeting at IETF on 2023-03-28

* National Marine Electronics Association use case discovered on 2023-03-29

* Hooked into W3C Community discussion - which shows that the "security"
concern (a.k.a. cross-origin resource sharing) applies to several IP address
types (including RFC1918) and is no kind of argument against this draft.

* draft-ietf-6man-rfc6874bis-06, 2023-04-07:
Noted potential exposure of MAC addresses in zone IDs.
Expanded detail on lower-case normalization.
Added specific use case examples.
Added NMEA use case.
Clearly explained cut-and-paste requirement.
!! Indicated that network infrastructure devices are out of scope.
!! Noted the work-around using interface numbers.
Mentioned .local as another case of locally significant URIs.
!! Added discussion of CORS.
Update descriptions of rejected alternatives
!! Noted parsing fragility re % sign.
Other IESG review nits.

(The !! changes directly addressed the DISCUSS comments)

* draft-ietf-6man-rfc6874bis-07, 2023-04-12:
!! Clarified character set restrictions and the applicability of numeric identifiers as a work-around.
!! Updated ABNF to require lower case, reorganized text as a result.
!! Expanded text on handling of zone ID at server.
Other nits.

(The !! changes further addressed the DISCUSS comments)

* draft-ietf-6man-rfc6874bis-08, 2023-04-06:
Noted minor inconsistency with RFC 4007.

* draft-ietf-6man-rfc6874bis-09, 2023-07-02:
!! Noted scope is limited to RFC 4007 model.
Updated W3C reference.

(The !! changes further addressed the DISCUSS comments)

* Side meeting at IETF 2023-07-25


[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

[Ballot discuss]
Thanks to Martin Thomson for his ARTART review.  It raises some serious concerns that I don't think have been resolved by the discussion that followed, either in 6MAN or on the Last Call list, so I'm balloting DISCUSS to figure out with the IESG how to proceed.

It appears some of these concerns were raised in early 2022 on the DISPATCH list and discussed then.  The ARTART review gives the impression that despite the work that's been done in the interim, it has not been sufficient to allay those concerns.  So it seems clear that we have WG consensus to proceed, but I'm not certain beyond that.

A few specific things I'd like to explore are:

1) If it's clear the browser community does not want (and maybe will not implement) this, what is our justification for proceeding?  In particular, that fact appears to me to eliminate half of the supporting use cases presented in Section 1.

2) Was the W3C TAG review completed?  What was the result?

3) Do any of the communities rejecting it have a preferred alternative for achieving the stated goal?

4) Is this within 6MAN's charter?

[Ballot discuss]
Thanks to Martin Thomson for his ARTART review.  It raises some serious concerns that I don't think have been resolved by the discussion that followed, either in 6MAN or on the Last Call list, so I'm balloting DISCUSS to figure out with the IESG how to proceed.

It appears some of these concerns were raised in early 2022 on the DISPATCH list and discussed then.  The ARTART review gives the impression that despite the work that's been done in the interim, it has not been sufficient to allay those concerns.  So it seems clear that we have WG consensus to proceed, but I'm not certain beyond that.

A few specific things I'd like to explore are:

1) If it's clear the browser community does not want (and maybe will not implement) this, what is our justification for proceeding?  In particular, that fact appears to me to eliminate half of the supporting use cases presented in Section 1.

2) Was the W3C TAG review completed?  What was the result?

3) Do any of the communities rejecting it have a preferred alternative for achieving the stated goal?

[Ballot comment]
Kudos to Jen Linkova for a well done shepherd writeup.

In Appendix A, several solutions were discarded because they don't allow "simple cut and paste".  That seems to be something specific; is it defined anywhere?

It's unfortunate that this was indeed posted to the "uri-review" list, but it drew no meaningful replies.

[Ballot discuss]
Hi,

I'm balloting discuss on this document because the encoding seems to exclude a large number of common port/interface name representation across many networking vendors that were allowed/supported by the previous RFC.  I think that it would be helpful to have a solution that accommodated these interface names, or to understand why they don't need to supported.

Specifically, the text in the introduction states:

  Zone identifiers are especially useful in contexts in
  which literal addresses are typically used, for example, during fault
  diagnosis, when it may be essential to specify which interface is
  used for sending to a link-local address.

and

  The mapping between the human-readable zone identifier string and the
  numeric value is a host-specific function that varies between
  operating systems.  The present document is concerned only with the
  human-readable string.

But unlike RFC 6874, which stated:

  If an operating system uses any other characters in zone or interface
  identifiers that are not in the "unreserved" character set, they MUST
  be represented using percent encoding [RFC3986].

The bis version of this document instead states:

  A zone identifier MUST contain only ASCII characters classified as
  "unreserved" for use in URIs [RFC3986].  This excludes characters
  such as "]" or even "%" that would complicate parsing.

  ...

  If an operating system uses any other characters in zone or interface
  identifiers that are not in the "unreserved" character set, they
  cannot be used in a URI.

Many (or even most) network devices across multiple vendors use interface names that all use characters that are not in the "unreserved" character set (specifically, '/' is a very common separator for linecards/ports/sub-ports/etc ...), and hence they would not be able to use the interface name (the obvious zone identifier) as part of this new encoding.

One could argue that the SNMP If-index or other internal numeric representation of the zone identifier (i.e., really an interface name) could be used instead, but the modern management APIs all use interface names (which in YANG allow for a large subset of unicode characters) rather than numerical indexes to identify interfaces.  I also think that we want to get away from numeric ids as zone identifiers in user facing uses.

Regards,
Rob

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to the authors for this document -- it's a bit sad that it's needed / taken this long, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

Also thanks to Jürgen Schönwälder for the helpful OpsDir review (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-6man-rfc6874bis-02-opsdir-lc-schoenwaelder-2022-09-22/) and the authors for addressing the comments.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this clear short document. Just a few minor comments:

  Unfortunately there is no formal limit on the length of the zone
  identifier string [RFC4007].  An implementation SHOULD apply a
  reasonable length limit when generating a URI, for example 64 ASCII
  characters, in order to minimize the risk of a buffer overrun.

If zone identifiers are interface names, a Linux restriction would
be the length of an interface name, IFNAMSIZ (or IF_NAMESIZE)
defined in , which is 16. Perhaps using 16 as the
example instead of 64 would be more prudent ?


Should there be any mention of not allowing NULL characters in
zone identifiers for URI's ? Or would it be legal to have:

        https://[fd63:45eb:cd14:0:80b2:5c79:62ae:d341%foo\00bar] ?


Thanks for listing the rejected proposals, that was helpful to me.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you to Leif Johansson for the SECDIR review.

** Section 5.

  URI parsers SHOULD accept a zone identifier according to the syntax
  defined in Section 3.

I’m trying to understanding how to implement this guidance.  What is the alternative to this format (since conformance to Section 3 is not required) – is it to fall back to Section 2 of RFC6874?

** Section 6.

  It is conceivable that this format could be misused to remotely probe
  a local network configuration. 

Perhaps fingerprinting a host as well.

[Ballot comment]

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-6man-rfc6874bis-05
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education), and some nits.

Special thanks to Jen Linkova for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus *and* the justification of the intended status.

Other thanks to Carlos Bernardos, the Internet directorate reviewer (at my request), please consider this int-dir review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-6man-rfc6874bis-05-intdir-telechat-bernardos-2023-03-11/ (and I have seen that Brian has already replied to Carlos)

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

## COMMENTS

### Section 1

Readers would benefit from some examples in the introduction text.

### Section 4

There are also special use domains names like ".local" (for mDNS) that do not have global scope. Is it worth mentioning ? After all, one author of this doc is mDNS father ;-)

### RFC 3927

It would have been nice to also address the open issues of section 3 of RFC 3927 with a similar mechanism for 169.254/16 on a multi-interface host. I know that this is about the legacy IPv4 protocol and this draft comes out of the 6MAN WG, but anyway... Feel free to ignore as it is a little late in the process

## NITS

### Section 1

s/IPv6 Link Local URL/IPv6 Link-Local URL/ ?
s/link local addresses /link-local addresses / (possibly in other places as well)
same for /layer 2/layer-2/

### Section 4

s/orginates it/originates it/

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues.

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments

1. Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as a
  work item there?

The document was only considered by 6MAN WG.

2. Was there controversy about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt
  the document?

There was no such controversy.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

Nobody threatened an appeal.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

There is a proof-of-concept implementation for Linux wget: https://github.com/becarpenter/wget6
The feature request for Firefox (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=700999#c94) has been reopened and acknowledged by the developers with the intention to implement it.
Internet Explorer supported link-local addresses but that browser is getting deprecated).
Feature requests were opened to implement what the draft proposes (e.g. https://github.com/whatwg/url/issues/392).


#t Additional Reviews
5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

The following reviews are being requested in parallel with the IETF Last Call:

*  W3TAG design review: https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/774#issuecomment-1244703046
*  URI-review
*  art@ietf.org
*  HTTP WG review

--- Resp. AD update ---

* Some concerns were raised in external reviews, mainly about not wanting to implement anything having to do with IPv6 link-local addresses in the browser.
* All stated concerns seem to be equally applicable to RFC 6874 itself.
* This document does have propose improvements that are useful, even if only initially of use to command line utilities.

---

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

See the answer to #5.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

The document doesn't contain any YANG module.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

BNF validity was verified by inserting the BNF rules from this document into the full RFC3986 ABNF and
running the ABNF checker. The checker produced no errors (and one warning that also applies to the unmodified RFC3986 version).

## Document Shepherd Checks
9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

The shepherd believes that the document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

As the document describes how IPv6 zone identifier can be represented in URIs, reviews from subject matter experts have been requested (see the answer to #5).


11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The document intended status is 'Proposed Standard' because the document is a -bis version of the RFC6874 published as Proposed Standard.
The datatracker shows the intended status as 'Proposed Standard' as well.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][8]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

All authors confirmed that they are aware of no relevant IPR. There were no disclosures against RFC6874 itself.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes, all authors and contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed.
The total number of authors is 3.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

Remaining nits:
-  idnits tool complains that the draft header indicates that this document updates RFC3986 and  RFC3987, but the
    abstract doesn't seem to directly say this". Actually the abstract does say that explicitly so this nit doesn't apply.
- "The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work". As the original authors of RFC6874 and the authors of this -bis document are the same people
this nit is not applicable.

- "The document date (5 July 2022) is 34 days in the past" - this is intentional.


15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No, I do not think any changes in the references are needed.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

All normative references are RFCs, hence freely available to anyone.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

There are no normative downward references.


18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

All normative references are either Internet Standard, Proposed Standard or BCP (RFC8174). No downward references.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

Publication of this document obsoletes RFC6874. The metadata reflects that change, as well as the fact that this document updates RFC3986 and RFC3987.
The abstract explicitly mentions those changes.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The document does not introduces any IANA considerations.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

No new IANA registries or allocations are introduced.


[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

1. Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as a
  work item there?

The document was only considered by 6MAN WG.

2. Was there controversy about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt
  the document?

There was no such controversy.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

Nobody threatened an appeal.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

There is a proof-of-concept implementation for Linux wget: https://github.com/becarpenter/wget6
The feature request for Firefox (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=700999#c94) has been reopened and acknowledged by the developers with the intention to implement it.
Internet Explorer supported link-local addresses but that browser is getting deprecated).
Feature requests were opened to implement what the draft proposes (e.g. https://github.com/whatwg/url/issues/392).


#t Additional Reviews
5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

The following reviews are being requested in parallel with the IETF Last Call:

*  W3TAG design review: https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/774#issuecomment-1244703046
*  URI-review
*  art@ietf.org
*  HTTP WG review

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

See the answer to #5.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

The document doesn't contain any YANG module.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

BNF validity was verified by inserting the BNF rules from this document into the full RFC3986 ABNF and
running the ABNF checker. The checker produced no errors (and one warning that also applies to the unmodified RFC3986 version).

## Document Shepherd Checks
9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

The shepherd believes that the document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

As the document describes how IPv6 zone identifier can be represented in URIs, reviews from subject matter experts have been requested (see the answer to #5).


11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The document intended status is 'Proposed Standard' because the document is a -bis version of the RFC6874 published as Proposed Standard.
The datatracker shows the intended status as 'Proposed Standard' as well.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][8]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

All authors confirmed that they are aware of no relevant IPR. There were no disclosures against RFC6874 itself.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes, all authors and contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed.
The total number of authors is 3.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

Remaining nits:
-  idnits tool complains that the draft header indicates that this document updates RFC3986 and  RFC3987, but the
    abstract doesn't seem to directly say this". Actually the abstract does say that explicitly so this nit doesn't apply.
- "The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work". As the original authors of RFC6874 and the authors of this -bis document are the same people
this nit is not applicable.

- "The document date (5 July 2022) is 34 days in the past" - this is intentional.


15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No, I do not think any changes in the references are needed.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

All normative references are RFCs, hence freely available to anyone.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

There are no normative downward references.


18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

All normative references are either Internet Standard, Proposed Standard or BCP (RFC8174). No downward references.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

Publication of this document obsoletes RFC6874. The metadata reflects that change, as well as the fact that this document updates RFC3986 and RFC3987.
The abstract explicitly mentions those changes.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The document does not introduces any IANA considerations.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

No new IANA registries or allocations are introduced.


[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

1. Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as a
  work item there?

The document was only considered by 6MAN WG.

2. Was there controversy about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt
  the document?

There was no such controversy.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

Nobody threatened an appeal.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

There is a proof-of-concept implementation for Linux wget: https://github.com/becarpenter/wget6
The feature request for Firefox (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=700999#c94) has been reopened and acknowledged by the developers with the intention to implement it.
Internet Explorer supported link-local addresses but that browser is getting deprecated).
Feature requests were opened to implement what the draft proposes (e.g. https://github.com/whatwg/url/issues/392).


#t Additional Reviews
5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

The following reviews are being requested in parallel with the IETF Last Call:
*  W3TAG design review: https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/774#issuecomment-1244703046
*  URI-review
*  art@ietf.org
*  HTTP WG review

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

See the answer to #5.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

The document doesn't contain any YANG module.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

BNF validity was verified by inserting the BNF rules from this document into the full RFC3986 ABNF and
running the ABNF checker. The checker produced no errors (and one warning that also applies to the unmodified RFC3986 version).

## Document Shepherd Checks
9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

The shepherd believes that the document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

As the document describes how IPv6 zone identifier can be represented in URIs, reviews from subject matter experts have been requested (see the answer to #5).


11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The document intended status is 'Proposed Standard' because the document is a -bis version of the RFC6874 published as Proposed Standard.
The datatracker shows the intended status as 'Proposed Standard' as well.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][8]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

All authors confirmed that they are aware of no relevant IPR. There were no disclosures against RFC6874 itself.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes, all authors and contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed.
The total number of authors is 3.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

Remaining nits:
-  idnits tool complains that the draft header indicates that this document updates RFC3986 and  RFC3987, but the
    abstract doesn't seem to directly say this". Actually the abstract does say that explicitly so this nit doesn't apply.
- "The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work". As the original authors of RFC6874 and the authors of this -bis document are the same people
this nit is not applicable.

- "The document date (5 July 2022) is 34 days in the past" - this is intentional.


15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No, I do not think any changes in the references are needed.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

All normative references are RFCs, hence freely available to anyone.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

There are no normative downward references.


18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

All normative references are either Internet Standard, Proposed Standard or BCP (RFC8174). No downward references.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

Publication of this document obsoletes RFC6874. The metadata reflects that change, as well as the fact that this document updates RFC3986 and RFC3987.
The abstract explicitly mentions those changes.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The document does not introduces any IANA considerations.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

No new IANA registries or allocations are introduced.


[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

1. Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as a
  work item there?

The document was only considered by 6MAN WG.

2. Was there controversy about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt
  the document?

There was no such controversy.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

Nobody threatened an appeal.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

There is a proof-of-concept implementation for Linux wget: https://github.com/becarpenter/wget6
The feature request for Firefox (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=700999#c94) has been reopened and acknowledged by the developers with the intention to implement it.
Internet Explorer supported link-local addresses but that browser is getting deprecated).
Feature requests were opened to implement what the draft proposes (e.g. https://github.com/whatwg/url/issues/392).


#t Additional Reviews
5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

The following reviews are being requested in parallel with the IETF Last Call:
*  W3TAG design review
*  art@ietf.org
*  HTTP WG review

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

See the answer to #5.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

The document doesn't contain any YANG module.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

BNF validity was verified by inserting the BNF rules from this document into the full RFC3986 ABNF and
running the ABNF checker. The checker produced no errors (and one warning that also applies to the unmodified RFC3986 version).

## Document Shepherd Checks
9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

The shepherd believes that the document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

As the document describes how IPv6 zone identifier can be represented in URIs, reviews from subject matter experts have been requested (see the answer to #5).


11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The document intended status is 'Proposed Standard' because the document is a -bis version of the RFC6874 published as Proposed Standard.
The datatracker shows the intended status as 'Proposed Standard' as well.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][8]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

All authors confirmed that they are aware of no relevant IPR. There were no disclosures against RFC6874 itself.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes, all authors and contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed.
The total number of authors is 3.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

Remaining nits:
-  idnits tool complains that the draft header indicates that this document updates RFC3986 and  RFC3987, but the
    abstract doesn't seem to directly say this". Actually the abstract does say that explicitly so this nit doesn't apply.
- "The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work". As the original authors of RFC6874 and the authors of this -bis document are the same people
this nit is not applicable.

- "The document date (5 July 2022) is 34 days in the past" - this is intentional.


15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No, I do not think any changes in the references are needed.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

All normative references are RFCs, hence freely available to anyone.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

There are no normative downward references.


18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

All normative references are either Internet Standard, Proposed Standard or BCP (RFC8174). No downward references.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

Publication of this document obsoletes RFC6874. The metadata reflects that change, as well as the fact that this document updates RFC3986 and RFC3987.
The abstract explicitly mentions those changes.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The document does not introduces any IANA considerations.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

No new IANA registries or allocations are introduced.


[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-6man-rfc6874bis-02, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-09-26):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: 6man-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-6man-rfc6874bis@ietf.org, ek.ietf@gmail.com, furry13@gmail.com, ipv6@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Representing IPv6 Zone Identifiers in Address Literals and Uniform Resource Identifiers) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Maintenance WG (6man) to
consider the following document: - 'Representing IPv6 Zone Identifiers in
Address Literals and Uniform
  Resource Identifiers'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2022-09-26. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document describes how the zone identifier of an IPv6 scoped
  address, defined as  in the IPv6 Scoped Address Architecture
  (RFC 4007), can be represented in a literal IPv6 address and in a
  Uniform Resource Identifier that includes such a literal address.  It
  updates the URI Generic Syntax and Internationalized Resource
  Identifier specifications (RFC 3986, RFC 3987) accordingly, and
  obsoletes RFC 6874.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-rfc6874bis/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

1. Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as a
  work item there?

The document was only considered by 6MAN WG.

2. Was there controversy about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt
  the document?

There was no such controversy.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

Nobody threatened an appeal.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

There is a proof-of-concept implementation for Linux wget: https://github.com/becarpenter/wget6
There is no actual browser implementing RFC6874bis yet (Internet Explorer supported link-local addresses but that browser is getting deprecated).
Multiple feature requests were opened to implement what the draft proposes (e.g. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=700999 and https://github.com/whatwg/url/issues/392).


#t Additional Reviews
5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

The following reviews are being requested in parallel with the IETF Last Call:
*  W3TAG design review
*  art@ietf.org
*  HTTP WG review

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

See the answer to #5.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

The document doesn't contain any YANG module.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

BNF validity was verified by inserting the BNF rules from this document into the full RFC3986 ABNF and
running the ABNF checker. The checker produced no errors (and one warning that also applies to the unmodified RFC3986 version).

## Document Shepherd Checks
9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

The shepherd believes that the document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

As the document describes how IPv6 zone identifier can be represented in URIs, reviews from subject matter experts have been requested (see the answer to #5).


11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The document intended status is 'Proposed Standard' because the document is a -bis version of the RFC6874 published as Proposed Standard.
The datatracker shows the intended status as 'Proposed Standard' as well.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][8]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

All authors confirmed that they are aware of no relevant IPR. There were no disclosures against RFC6874 itself.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes, all authors and contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed.
The total number of authors is 3.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

Remaining nits:
-  idnits tool complains that the draft header indicates that this document updates RFC3986 and  RFC3987, but the
    abstract doesn't seem to directly say this". Actually the abstract does say that explicitly so this nit doesn't apply.
- "The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work". As the original authors of RFC6874 and the authors of this -bis document are the same people
this nit is not applicable.

- "The document date (5 July 2022) is 34 days in the past" - this is intentional.


15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No, I do not think any changes in the references are needed.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

All normative references are RFCs, hence freely available to anyone.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

There are no normative downward references.


18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

All normative references are either Internet Standard, Proposed Standard or BCP (RFC8174). No downward references.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

Publication of this document obsoletes RFC6874. The metadata reflects that change, as well as the fact that this document updates RFC3986 and RFC3987.
The abstract explicitly mentions those changes.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The document does not introduces any IANA considerations.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

No new IANA registries or allocations are introduced.


[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

1. Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as a
  work item there?

The document was only considered by 6MAN WG.

2. Was there controversy about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt
  the document?

There was no such controversy.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

Nobody threatened an appeal.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

There is a proof-of-concept implementation for Linux wget: https://github.com/becarpenter/wget6
There is no actual browser implementing RFC6874bis yet (Internet Explorer supported link-local addresses but that browser is getting deprecated).
Multiple feature requests were opened to implement what the draft proposes (e.g. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=700999 and https://github.com/whatwg/url/issues/392).


#t Additional Reviews
5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

The following reviews are being requested in parallel with the IETF Last Call:
*  W3TAG design review
*  art@ietf.org
*  HTTP WG review

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

See the answer to #5.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

The document doesn't contain any YANG module.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

BNF validity was verified by inserting the BNF rules from this document into the full RFC3986 ABNF and
running the ABNF checker. The checker produced no errors (and one warning that also applies to the unmodified RFC3986 version).

## Document Shepherd Checks
9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

The shepherd believes that the document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

As the document describes how IPv6 zone identifier can be represented in URIs, reviews from subject matter experts have been requested (see the answer to #5).


11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The document intended status is 'Proposed Standard' because the document is a -bis version of the RFC6874 published as Proposed Standard.
The datatracker shows the intended status as 'Proposed Standard' as well.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][8]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

All authors confirmed that they are aware of no relevant IPR. There were no disclosures against RFC6874 itself.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes, all authors and contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed.
The total number of authors is 3.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

Remaining nits:
-  idnits tool complains that the draft header indicates that this document updates RFC3986 and  RFC3987, but the
    abstract doesn't seem to directly say this". Actually the abstract does say that explicitly so this nit doesn't apply.
- "The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work". As the original authors of RFC6874 and the authors of this -bis document are the same people
this nit is not applicable.
- "The document date (5 July 2022) is 34 days in the past" - this is intentional.


15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No, I do not think any changes in the references are needed.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

All normative references are RFCs, hence freely available to anyone.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

There are no normative downward references.


18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

All normative references are either Internet Standard, Proposed Standard or BCP (RFC8174). No downward references.
19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

Publication of this document obsoletes RFC6874. The metadata reflects that change, as well as the fact that this document updates RFC3986 and RFC3987.
The abstract explicitly mentions those changes.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The document does not introduces any IANA considerations.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

No new IANA registries or allocations are introduced.


[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/

1. Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as a
  work item there?

The document was only considered by 6MAN WG.

2. Was there controversy about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt
  the document?

There was no such controversy.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

Nobody threatened an appeal.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

There is a proof-of-concept implementation for Linux wget: https://github.com/becarpenter/wget6
There is no actual browser implementing RFC6874bis yet (Internet Explorer supported link-local addresses but that browser is getting deprecated).
Multiple feature requests were opened to implement what the draft proposes (e.g. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=700999 and https://github.com/whatwg/url/issues/392).


#t Additional Reviews
5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

The following reviews are being requested in parallel with the IETF Last Call:
*  W3TAG design review
*  art@ietf.org
*  HTTP WG review

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

See the answer to #5.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

The document doesn't contain any YANG module.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

BNF validity was verified by inserting the BNF rules from this document into the full RFC3986 ABNF and
running the ABNF checker. The checker produced no errors (and one warning that also applies to the unmodified RFC3986 version).

## Document Shepherd Checks
9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

The shepherd believes that the document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

As the document describes how IPv6 zone identifier can be represented in URIs, reviews from subject matter experts have been requested (see the answer to #5).


11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The document intended status is 'Proposed Standard' because the document is a -bis version of the RFC6874 published as Proposed Standard.
The datatracker shows the intended status as 'Proposed Standard' as well.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][8]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

All authors confirmed that they are aware of no relevant IPR. There were no disclosures against RFC6874 itself.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes, all authors and contributor confirmed their willingness to be listed.
The total number of authors is 3.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

Remaining nits:
-  idnits tool complains that the draft header indicates that this document updates RFC3986 and  RFC3987, but the
    abstract doesn't seem to directly say this". Actually the abstract does say that explicitly so this nit doesn't apply.
- "The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work". As the original authors of RFC6874 and the authors of this -bis document are the same people
this nit is not applicable.
- "The document date (5 July 2022) is 34 days in the past" - this is intentional.


15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

No, I do not think any changes in the references are needed.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

All normative references are RFCs, hence freely available to anyone.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

There are no normative downward references.


18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

All normative references are either Internet Standard, Proposed Standard or BCP (RFC8174). No downward references.
19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

Publication of this document obsoletes RFC6874. The metadata reflects that change, as well as the fact that this document updates RFC3986 and RFC3987.
The abstract explicitly mentions those changes.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The document does not introduces any IANA considerations.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

No new IANA registries or allocations are introduced.


[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/iesg/wiki/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/