Re: [Sip] Last Call: draft-ietf-sip-ipv6-abnf-fix (Essential correction for IPv6 ABNF and URI comparison in RFC3261) to Proposed Standard

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

On 4/27/10 08:37, Apr 27, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> Adam Roach wrote:
>
>    
>> For what it's worth, typing "http://www.ietf.org:080/" into Firefox,
>> Safari, and MSIE all takes me to the IETF's web page (interpreting "080"
>> as 80, not 64). So, at least for HTTP URLs, there's a de facto
>> interpretation of leading zeros in a port as padding, not an indication
>> of octal.
>>      
> But that still implies a binary comparison instead of a textual one,
> unless the textual comparison is going to understand the zero-padding
> and remove it first.
>
>    

Yes, it does. The question is whether that belongs in the v6 document, 
or if we need to do a similar rev for port numbers. Seeing as how the 
issue applies equally to v4 and v6, I'd say that putting it in the v6 
document would be an expansion of scope that is inappropriate at the 
current state of the document's development.

We probably should log it in the bug tracker (bugs.sipit.org), and not 
address it in the document at hand.

/a