Re: [Sip] Re: URI comparison rules

Michael Thomas wrote:
> Doesn't this sort of slide down the slippery slope of understanding 
> the semantics of the URI for comparison? For example, why can't you
> make the same kind of argument for www.example.com and example.com
> since they're pretty much synonymous these days? And for that matter
> what about comparing example.com and, oh say, its A(AAA) record?
> They're the "same", FSVO "same".

Mike: Our domain is restricted to SIP URIs.  In other words,
while DNS-wise, www.example.com = example.com, this does not carry
into SIP; i.e., sip:user@sip.example.com != sip:user@example.com.

I suppose the rules for SIP URI comparisons are a bit more stringent
than DNS equivalence of names, aliases, and their resulting addresses.

> Maybe I missed the first post, but is it realistic that something(s) 
> producing URI's for the same target would create their name in 
> different manners?

No, not realistic, but entirely probable.

> And if it is, why wouldn't it be as much of a problem with the IP
> address name and a real fqdn?

Because, SIP URI wise, sip:user@example.com != sip:user@192.0.2.128
even though DNS_lookup("example.com") = "192.0.2.128".

Thanks,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
2701 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9F-546, Lisle, Illinois 60532 (USA)
Email: vkg@{alcatel-lucent.com,bell-labs.com,acm.org}
WWW:   http://www.alcatel-lucent.com/bell-labs

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip

Re: [Sip] Re: URI comparison rules - IPv6 addresses