Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-sip-ipv6-abnf-fix-05

[Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>]

Hi Vijay,
   The proposed change looks good. Thanks for taking care of this.

Cheers
Suresh

On 10-05-19 12:41 PM, Vijay K. Gurbani wrote:
> On 05/18/2010 12:46 AM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
>> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
>> reviewer for this draft ...  draft-ietf-sip-ipv6-abnf-fix-05
> 
> Suresh: Thank you for the review.  More inline.
> 
>> Minor
>> =====
>> * The draft also fixes the ABNF for IPv4 addresses i.e. the
>> <IPv4address> rule but is silent about why it is doing so. I think I
>> understand why it is being fixed but I would like the authors to clarify.
>>
>> The old rule read
> [...]
>> It would be nice if you can some explanatory text in Section 2.
>> Something like
>>
>> "The <IPv4address> rule in RFC3261 allowed invalid IPv4 addresses to be
>> specified and still be compliant to the ABNF. (e.g. An URI such as
>> sip:bob@444.555.666.777:88 would still be considered valid.) The
>> resolution for this error is simply to use the correct ABNF for the
>> <IPv4address> production rule from Appendix A of RFC3986 [3]."
> 
> Instead of putting this in Section 2, which discusses problems with
> IPv6 addresses, I will put the above text as an indented text in
> S3.1.  Something like the following:
> 
> OLD:
>     Accordingly, this document updates RFC3261 as follows:  the
>     ...
>     Thus this document also mandates that the <hexpart>,
>     <hexseq>, and <hex4> production rules MUST be deleted from the ABNF
>     of RFC3261.
> 
> NEW:
>     Accordingly, this document updates RFC3261 as follows:  the
>     ...
>     Thus this document also mandates that the <hexpart>,
>     <hexseq>, and <hex4> production rules MUST be deleted from the ABNF
>     of RFC3261.
> 
>        The use of the <IPv4address> production rule from
>        RFC3986 no longer allows syntactically valid --- though
>        semantically invalid --- SIP URIs of the form
>        "sip:bob@444.555.666.777".
> 
> Is that okay?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> - vijay