Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) B. Carpenter
Request for Comments: 6874 Univ. of Auckland
Updates: 3986 S. Cheshire
Category: Standards Track Apple Inc.
ISSN: 2070-1721 R. Hinden
Check Point
February 2013
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) B. Carpenter
Request for Comments: 6874 Univ. of Auckland
Updates: 3986 S. Cheshire
Category: Standards Track Apple Inc.
ISSN: 2070-1721 R. Hinden
Check Point
February 2013
Representing IPv6 Zone Identifiers in Address Literals and Uniform Resource Identifiers
在地址文本和统一资源标识符中表示IPv6区域标识符
Abstract
摘要
This document describes how the zone identifier of an IPv6 scoped address, defined as <zone_id> 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 specification (RFC 3986) accordingly.
本文档描述了IPv6作用域地址的区域标识符（在IPv6作用域地址体系结构（RFC 4007）中定义为<zone_id>）如何在文字IPv6地址和包含此类文字地址的统一资源标识符中表示。它相应地更新了URI通用语法规范（RFC3986）。
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
这是一份互联网标准跟踪文件。
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
本文件是互联网工程任务组（IETF）的产品。它代表了IETF社区的共识。它已经接受了公众审查，并已被互联网工程指导小组（IESG）批准出版。有关互联网标准的更多信息，请参见RFC 5741第2节。
Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6874.
有关本文件当前状态、任何勘误表以及如何提供反馈的信息，请访问http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6874.
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
版权所有（c）2013 IETF信托基金和确定为文件作者的人员。版权所有。
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
本文件受BCP 78和IETF信托有关IETF文件的法律规定的约束(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)自本文件出版之日起生效。请仔细阅读这些文件，因为它们描述了您对本文件的权利和限制。从本文件中提取的代码组件必须包括信托法律条款第4.e节中所述的简化BSD许可证文本，并提供简化BSD许可证中所述的无担保。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Web Browsers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Appendix A. Options Considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Web Browsers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Appendix A. Options Considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
The Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) syntax specification [RFC3986] defined how a literal IPv6 address can be represented in the "host" part of a URI. Two months later, the IPv6 Scoped Address Architecture specification [RFC4007] extended the text representation of limited-scope IPv6 addresses such that a zone identifier may be concatenated to a literal address, for purposes described in that specification. 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. It should be noted that zone identifiers have purely local meaning within the node in which they are defined, often being the same as IPv6 interface names. They are completely meaningless for any other node. Today, they are meaningful only when attached to addresses with less than global scope, but it is possible that other uses might be defined in the future.
统一资源标识符（URI）语法规范[RFC3986]定义了如何在URI的“主机”部分表示文字IPv6地址。两个月后，IPv6作用域地址体系结构规范[RFC4007]扩展了有限作用域IPv6地址的文本表示形式，以便为了该规范中描述的目的，可以将区域标识符连接到文本地址。区域标识符在通常使用文字地址的上下文中特别有用，例如，在故障诊断期间，可能需要指定用于发送到链路本地地址的接口。应该注意的是，区域标识符在定义它们的节点内具有纯粹的本地含义，通常与IPv6接口名称相同。它们对于任何其他节点都完全没有意义。今天，它们只有在附加到小于全局范围的地址时才有意义，但将来可能会定义其他用途。
The IPv6 Scoped Address Architecture specification [RFC4007] does not specify how zone identifiers are to be represented in URIs. Practical experience has shown that this feature is useful, in particular when using a web browser for debugging with link-local addresses, but because it is undefined, it is not implemented consistently in URI parsers or in browsers.
IPv6作用域地址体系结构规范[RFC4007]没有指定如何在URI中表示区域标识符。实践经验表明，此功能非常有用，特别是在使用web浏览器对链接本地地址进行调试时，但由于未定义此功能，因此无法在URI解析器或浏览器中一致实现。
Some versions of some browsers directly accept the IPv6 Scoped Address syntax [RFC4007] for scoped IPv6 addresses embedded in URIs, i.e., they have been coded to interpret a "%" sign following the literal address as introducing a zone identifier [RFC4007], instead of introducing two hexadecimal characters representing some percent-encoded octet [RFC3986]. Clearly, interpreting the "%" sign as introducing a zone identifier is very convenient for users, although it formally breaches the established URI syntax [RFC3986]. This
某些浏览器的某些版本直接接受URI中嵌入的作用域IPv6地址的IPv6作用域地址语法[RFC4007]，也就是说，它们被编码为将文字地址后面的“%”符号解释为引入区域标识符[RFC4007]，而不是引入两个十六进制字符，表示某种百分比编码的八位字节[RFC3986]。显然，将“%”符号解释为引入区域标识符对用户来说非常方便，尽管它正式违反了已建立的URI语法[RFC3986]。这
document defines an alternative approach that respects and extends the rules of URI syntax, and IPv6 literals in general, to be consistent.
文档定义了一种替代方法，该方法尊重并扩展了URI语法和IPv6文本的规则，使其保持一致。
Thus, this document updates the URI syntax specification [RFC3986] by adding syntax to allow a zone identifier to be included in a literal IPv6 address within a URI.
因此，本文档通过添加语法来更新URI语法规范[RFC3986]，以允许在URI内的文字IPv6地址中包含区域标识符。
It should be noted that in contexts other than a user interface, a zone identifier is mapped into a numeric zone index or interface number. The MIB textual convention InetZoneIndex [RFC4001] and the socket interface [RFC3493] define this as a 32-bit unsigned integer. 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.
应该注意的是，在用户界面以外的上下文中，区域标识符映射到数字区域索引或接口号。MIB文本约定InetZoneIndex[RFC4001]和套接字接口[RFC3493]将其定义为32位无符号整数。人类可读区域标识符字符串和数值之间的映射是主机特定的函数，在不同的操作系统中有所不同。本文件仅涉及人类可读字符串。
Several alternative solutions were considered while this document was developed. Appendix A briefly describes the various options and their advantages and disadvantages.
在编制本文件时，考虑了几种替代解决方案。附录A简要介绍了各种选项及其优缺点。
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels" [RFC2119].
本文件中的关键词“必须”、“不得”、“要求”、“应”、“不应”、“应”、“不应”、“建议”、“可”和“可选”应按照“RFC中用于指示需求水平的关键词”[RFC2119]中的描述进行解释。
According to IPv6 Scoped Address syntax [RFC4007], a zone identifier is attached to the textual representation of an IPv6 address by concatenating "%" followed by <zone_id>, where <zone_id> is a string identifying the zone of the address. However, the IPv6 Scoped Address Architecture specification gives no precise definition of the character set allowed in <zone_id>. There are no rules or de facto standards for this. For example, the first Ethernet interface in a host might be called %0, %1, %en1, %eth0, or whatever the implementer happened to choose.
根据IPv6作用域地址语法[RFC4007]，通过将“%”与<zone_id>串联，将区域标识符附加到IPv6地址的文本表示中，其中<zone_id>是标识地址区域的字符串。但是，IPv6作用域地址体系结构规范没有给出<zone\u id>中允许的字符集的精确定义。这方面没有规则或事实上的标准。例如，主机中的第一个以太网接口可能被称为%0、%1、%en1、%eth0，或者实现者碰巧选择的任何名称。
In a URI, a literal IPv6 address is always embedded between "[" and "]". This document specifies how a <zone_id> can be appended to the address. According to URI syntax [RFC3986], "%" is always treated as an escape character in a URI, so, according to the established URI syntax [RFC3986] any occurrences of literal "%" symbols in a URI MUST be percent-encoded and represented in the form "%25". Thus, the scoped address fe80::a%en1 would appear in a URI as http://[fe80::a%25en1].
在URI中，文本IPv6地址始终嵌入在“[”和“]”之间。本文档指定如何将<zone_id>附加到地址。根据URI语法[RFC3986]，“%”始终被视为URI中的转义字符，因此，根据已建立的URI语法[RFC3986]，URI中出现的任何文字“%”符号都必须进行百分比编码，并以“%25”的形式表示。因此，作用域地址fe80:：a%en1将在URI中显示为http://[fe80:：a%25en1]。
A <zone_id> SHOULD contain only ASCII characters classified as "unreserved" for use in URIs [RFC3986]. This excludes characters such as "]" or even "%" that would complicate parsing. However, the syntax described below does allow such characters to be percent-encoded, for compatibility with existing devices that use them.
<zone_id>应仅包含分类为“未保留”的ASCII字符，以便在URI中使用[RFC3986]。这不包括会使解析复杂化的字符，例如“]”甚至“%”。但是，为了与使用这些字符的现有设备兼容，下面描述的语法允许对这些字符进行百分比编码。
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].
如果操作系统在区域或接口标识符中使用不在“未保留”字符集中的任何其他字符，则必须使用百分比编码[RFC3986]表示它们。
We now present the necessary formal syntax.
现在我们介绍必要的正式语法。
The URI syntax specification [RFC3986] formally defined the IPv6 literal format in ABNF [RFC5234] by the following rule:
URI语法规范[RFC3986]通过以下规则在ABNF[RFC5234]中正式定义了IPv6文本格式：
IP-literal = "[" ( IPv6address / IPvFuture ) "]"
IP literal=“[（IPV6地址/IPvFuture）]”
To provide support for a zone identifier, the existing syntax of IPv6address is retained, and a zone identifier may be added optionally to any literal address. This syntax allows flexibility for unknown future uses. The rule quoted above from the previous URI syntax specification [RFC3986] is replaced by three rules:
为了提供对区域标识符的支持，保留了IPv6address的现有语法，并且可以选择向任何文本地址添加区域标识符。这种语法允许将来未知用途的灵活性。前面的URI语法规范[RFC3986]中引用的规则替换为三条规则：
IP-literal = "[" ( IPv6address / IPv6addrz / IPvFuture ) "]"
IP-literal = "[" ( IPv6address / IPv6addrz / IPvFuture ) "]"
ZoneID = 1*( unreserved / pct-encoded )
ZoneID = 1*( unreserved / pct-encoded )
IPv6addrz = IPv6address "%25" ZoneID
IPv6addrz=IPv6address“%25”区域ID
This syntax fills the gap that is described at the end of Section 11.7 of the IPv6 Scoped Address Architecture specification [RFC4007].
此语法填补了IPv6作用域地址体系结构规范[RFC4007]第11.7节末尾所述的空白。
The established rules for textual representation of IPv6 addresses [RFC5952] SHOULD be applied in producing URIs.
IPv6地址文本表示的既定规则[RFC5952]应应用于生成URI。
The URI syntax specification [RFC3986] states that URIs have a global scope, but that in some cases their interpretation depends on the end-user's context. URIs including a ZoneID are to be interpreted only in the context of the host at which they originate, since the ZoneID is of local significance only.
URI语法规范[RFC3986]指出URI具有全局作用域，但在某些情况下，它们的解释取决于最终用户的上下文。包含ZoneID的URI只能在其来源主机的上下文中进行解释，因为ZoneID仅具有本地意义。
The IPv6 Scoped Address Architecture specification [RFC4007] offers guidance on how the ZoneID affects interface/address selection inside the IPv6 stack. Note that the behaviour of an IPv6 stack, if it is passed a non-null zone index for an address other than link-local, is undefined.
IPv6作用域地址体系结构规范[RFC4007]提供了有关ZoneID如何影响IPv6堆栈内接口/地址选择的指导。请注意，如果向IPv6堆栈传递了地址（而不是本地链路）的非空区域索引，则IPv6堆栈的行为是未定义的。
This section discusses how web browsers might handle this syntax extension. Unfortunately, there is no formal distinction between the syntax allowed in a browser's input dialogue box and the syntax allowed in URIs. For this reason, no normative statements are made in this section.
本节讨论web浏览器如何处理此语法扩展。不幸的是，浏览器输入对话框中允许的语法与URI中允许的语法之间没有正式的区别。因此，本节未作任何规范性陈述。
Due to the lack of defined syntax, web browsers have been inconsistent in providing for ZoneIDs. Many have no support, but there are examples of ad hoc support. For example, some versions of Firefox allowed the use of a ZoneID preceded by a bare "%" character, but this feature was removed for consistency with established syntax [RFC3986]. As another example, some versions of Internet Explorer allow use of a ZoneID preceded by a "%" character encoded as "%25", still beyond the syntax allowed by the established rules [RFC3986]. This syntax extension is in fact used internally in the Windows operating system and some of its APIs.
由于缺少定义的语法，web浏览器在提供ZoneID时一直不一致。许多人没有得到支持，但也有特别支持的例子。例如，Firefox的某些版本允许使用前面带有空“%”字符的ZoneID，但为了与已建立的语法保持一致[RFC3986]，此功能被删除。另一个例子是，Internet Explorer的某些版本允许使用前跟编码为“%25”的“%”字符的ZoneID，但仍超出了既定规则[RFC3986]允许的语法。这个语法扩展实际上在Windows操作系统及其一些API中内部使用。
It is desirable for all browsers to recognise a ZoneID preceded by a percent-encoded "%". In the spirit of "be liberal with what you accept", we also suggest that URI parsers accept bare "%" signs when possible (i.e., a "%" not followed by two valid and meaningful hexadecimal characters). This would make it possible for a user to copy and paste a string such as "fe80::a%en1" from the output of a "ping" command and have it work. On the other hand, "%ee1" would need to be manually rewritten to "fe80::a%25ee1" to avoid any risk of misinterpretation.
所有浏览器都希望能够识别前面带有百分比编码“%”的ZoneID。本着“对您所接受的内容保持自由”的精神，我们还建议URI解析器在可能的情况下接受裸露的“%”符号（即“%”后面不跟两个有效且有意义的十六进制字符）。这样，用户就可以从“ping”命令的输出中复制和粘贴字符串，如“fe80:：a%en1”，并使其正常工作。另一方面，“%ee1”需要手动重写为“fe80:：a%25ee1”，以避免任何误解的风险。
Such bare "%" signs are for user interface convenience, and need to be turned into properly encoded characters (where "%25" encodes "%") before the URI is used in any protocol or HTML document. However, URIs including a ZoneID have no meaning outside the originating node. It would therefore be highly desirable for a browser to remove the ZoneID from a URI before including that URI in an HTTP request.
这种裸露的“%”符号是为了方便用户界面，在任何协议或HTML文档中使用URI之前，需要将其转换为正确编码的字符（其中“%25”编码“%”）。但是，包含ZoneID的URI在发起节点之外没有任何意义。因此，浏览器在HTTP请求中包含URI之前，最好先从URI中删除ZoneID。
The normal diagnostic usage for the ZoneID syntax will cause it to be entered in the browser's input dialogue box. Thus, URIs including a ZoneID are unlikely to be encountered in HTML documents. However, if they do (for example, in a diagnostic script coded in HTML), it would be appropriate to treat them exactly as above.
ZoneID语法的正常诊断用法将导致在浏览器的输入对话框中输入ZoneID。因此，在HTML文档中不太可能遇到包含ZoneID的URI。然而，如果他们这样做了（例如，在HTML编码的诊断脚本中），则应该完全按照上面的方法处理它们。
The security considerations from the URI syntax specification [RFC3986] and the IPv6 Scoped Address Architecture specification [RFC4007] apply. In particular, this URI format creates a specific pathway by which a deceitful zone index might be communicated, as mentioned in the final security consideration of the Scoped Address Architecture specification. It is emphasised that the format is intended only for debugging purposes, but of course this intention does not prevent misuse.
URI语法规范[RFC3986]和IPv6作用域地址体系结构规范[RFC4007]中的安全注意事项适用。特别是，此URI格式创建了一个特定的路径，通过该路径可以传递欺骗区域索引，如作用域地址体系结构规范的最终安全考虑中所述。需要强调的是，该格式仅用于调试目的，但这种目的当然不能防止误用。
To limit this risk, implementations MUST NOT allow use of this format except for well-defined usages, such as sending to link-local addresses under prefix fe80::/10. At the time of writing, this is the only well-defined usage known.
为限制此风险，除定义明确的用途外，实现不得允许使用此格式，例如在前缀fe80:：/10下发送到链接本地地址。在撰写本文时，这是已知的唯一定义明确的用法。
An HTTP client, proxy, or other intermediary MUST remove any ZoneID attached to an outgoing URI, as it has only local significance at the sending host.
HTTP客户端、代理或其他中介必须删除附加到传出URI的任何ZoneID，因为它在发送主机上仅具有本地意义。
The lack of this format was first pointed out by Margaret Wasserman some years ago, and more recently by Kerry Lynn. A previous draft document by Martin Duerst and Bill Fenner [LITERAL-ZONE] discussed this topic but was not finalised.
The lack of this format was first pointed out by Margaret Wasserman some years ago, and more recently by Kerry Lynn. A previous draft document by Martin Duerst and Bill Fenner [LITERAL-ZONE] discussed this topic but was not finalised.translate error, please retry
Valuable comments and contributions were made by Karl Auer, Carsten Bormann, Benoit Claise, Stephen Farrell, Brian Haberman, Ted Hardie, Tatuya Jinmei, Yves Lafon, Barry Leiba, Radia Perlman, Tom Petch, Tomoyuki Sahara, Juergen Schoenwaelder, Dave Thaler, Martin Thomson, and Ole Troan.
卡尔·奥尔、卡斯滕·鲍曼、贝诺伊特·克莱斯、斯蒂芬·法雷尔、布赖恩·哈伯曼、特德·哈迪、塔图亚·金美、伊夫·拉丰、巴里·莱巴、拉迪亚·帕尔曼、汤姆·佩奇、托莫尤基·撒哈拉、于尔根·舍恩瓦尔德、戴夫·泰勒、马丁·汤姆森和奥勒·特罗安发表了宝贵的评论和贡献。
Brian Carpenter was a visitor at the Computer Laboratory, Cambridge University during part of this work.
布赖恩·卡彭特是剑桥大学计算机实验室的一名访客，他参与了这项工作。
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2119]Bradner，S.，“RFC中用于表示需求水平的关键词”，BCP 14，RFC 2119，1997年3月。
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 3986, January 2005.
[RFC3986]Berners Lee，T.，Fielding，R.，和L.Masinter，“统一资源标识符（URI）：通用语法”，STD 66，RFC 3986，2005年1月。
[RFC4007] Deering, S., Haberman, B., Jinmei, T., Nordmark, E., and B. Zill, "IPv6 Scoped Address Architecture", RFC 4007, March 2005.
[RFC4007]Deering，S.，Haberman，B.，Jinmei，T.，Nordmark，E.，和B.Zill，“IPv6作用域地址体系结构”，RFC 4007，2005年3月。
[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.
[RFC5234]Crocker，D.，Ed.和P.Overell，“语法规范的扩充BNF:ABNF”，STD 68，RFC 5234，2008年1月。
[RFC5952] Kawamura, S. and M. Kawashima, "A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation", RFC 5952, August 2010.
[RFC5952]Kawamura，S.和M.Kawashima，“IPv6地址文本表示的建议”，RFC 59522010年8月。
[LITERAL-ZONE] Fenner, B. and M. Duerst, "Formats for IPv6 Scope Zone Identifiers in Literal Address Formats", Work in Progress, October 2005.
[LITERAL-ZONE]Fenner，B.和M.Duerst，“文字地址格式的IPv6作用域标识符格式”，正在进行的工作，2005年10月。
[RFC3493] Gilligan, R., Thomson, S., Bound, J., McCann, J., and W. Stevens, "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6", RFC 3493, February 2003.
[RFC3493]Gilligan，R.，Thomson，S.，Bound，J.，McCann，J.，和W.Stevens，“IPv6的基本套接字接口扩展”，RFC 3493，2003年2月。
[RFC4001] Daniele, M., Haberman, B., Routhier, S., and J. Schoenwaelder, "Textual Conventions for Internet Network Addresses", RFC 4001, February 2005.
[RFC4001]Daniele，M.，Haberman，B.，Routhier，S.，和J.Schoenwaeld，“互联网网络地址的文本约定”，RFC 4001，2005年2月。
The syntax defined above allows a ZoneID to be added to any IPv6 address. The 6man WG discussed and rejected an alternative in which the existing syntax of IPv6address would be extended by an option to add the ZoneID only for the case of link-local addresses. It was felt that the solution presented in this document offers more flexibility for future uses and is more straightforward to implement.
上面定义的语法允许将ZoneID添加到任何IPv6地址。6man工作组讨论并拒绝了一个替代方案，即IPv6address的现有语法将通过一个选项进行扩展，该选项仅在链接本地地址的情况下添加ZoneID。有人认为，本文件中提出的解决方案为将来的使用提供了更大的灵活性，并且更易于实施。
The various syntax options considered are now briefly described.
现在简要描述所考虑的各种语法选项。
1. Leave the problem unsolved.
1. 把问题留着不解决。
This would mean that per-interface diagnostics would still have to be performed using ping or ping6:
这意味着每个接口的诊断仍然必须使用ping或ping6执行：
ping fe80::a%en1
ping fe80:：a%en1
Advantage: works today.
优点：今天上班。
Disadvantage: less convenient than using a browser.
缺点：不如使用浏览器方便。
2. Simply use the percent character:
2. 只需使用百分比字符：
http://[fe80::a%en1]
http://[fe80::a%en1]
Advantage: allows use of browser; allows cut and paste.
优点：允许使用浏览器；允许剪切和粘贴。
Disadvantage: invalid syntax under RFC 3986; not acceptable to URI community.
缺点：RFC3986下的语法无效；URI社区不可接受。
3. Simply use an alternative separator:
3. 只需使用另一个分隔符：
http://[fe80::a-en1]
http://[fe80::a-en1]
Advantage: allows use of browser; simple syntax.
优点：允许使用浏览器；简单的语法。
Disadvantage: Requires all IPv6 address literal parsers and generators to be updated in order to allow simple cut and paste; inconsistent with existing tools and practice.
缺点：需要更新所有IPv6地址文本解析器和生成器，以便进行简单的剪切和粘贴；与现有工具和实践不一致。
Note: The initial proposal for this choice was to use an underscore as the separator, but it was noted that this becomes effectively invisible when a user interface automatically underlines URLs.
注意：此选项的最初建议是使用下划线作为分隔符，但需要注意的是，当用户界面自动在URL上加下划线时，这实际上是不可见的。
4. Simply use the "IPvFuture" syntax left open in RFC 3986:
4. 只需使用RFC 3986中打开的“IPvFuture”语法：
http://[v6.fe80::a_en1]
http://[v6.fe80::a_en1]
Advantage: allows use of browser.
优点：允许使用浏览器。
Disadvantage: ugly and redundant; doesn't allow simple cut and paste.
缺点：丑陋、多余；不允许简单的剪切和粘贴。
5. Retain the percent character already specified for introducing zone identifiers for IPv6 Scoped Addresses [RFC4007], and then percent-encode it when it appears in a URI, according to the already-established URI syntax rules [RFC 3986]:
5. 保留已指定用于为IPv6作用域地址[RFC4007]引入区域标识符的百分比字符，然后根据已建立的URI语法规则[RFC 3986]，在其出现在URI中时对其进行百分比编码：
http://[fe80::a%25en1]
http://[fe80::a%25en1]
Advantage: allows use of browser; consistent with general URI syntax.
优点：允许使用浏览器；与通用URI语法一致。
Disadvantage: somewhat ugly and confusing; doesn't allow simple cut and paste.
缺点：有点难看和混乱；不允许简单的剪切和粘贴。
This is the option chosen for standardisation.
这是为标准化选择的选项。
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Brian Carpenter Department of Computer Science University of Auckland PB 92019 Auckland, 1142 New Zealand
Brian Carpenter奥克兰大学计算机系，奥克兰92019，新西兰1142
EMail: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com
EMail: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com
Stuart Cheshire Apple Inc. 1 Infinite Loop Cupertino, CA 95014 United States
斯图尔特柴郡苹果公司，美国加利福尼亚州库比蒂诺市无限环路1号，邮编95014
EMail: cheshire@apple.com
EMail: cheshire@apple.com
Robert M. Hinden Check Point Software Technologies, Inc. 800 Bridge Parkway Redwood City, CA 94065 United States
Robert M.Hinden Check Point Software Technologies，Inc.800 Bridge Parkway美国加利福尼亚州红木市94065
EMail: bob.hinden@gmail.com
EMail: bob.hinden@gmail.com