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/