RE: [Sip] comments on draft-gurbani-sip-ipv6-abnf-fix-00

> What about the generic equivalence between :: and 
> the zeros that it elides?

As Vijay mentioned, enhancements concerning IPv6 (and IPv4) address
equivalency will be added within the next version of the draft.

The initial focus will likely be on the impacts of the variations
presented within rfc4291 sections 2.2 and 2.5.5.  The variations
presented within section 2.2 (such as your question) should be
considered equivalent from a SIP perspective.  However concerning things
like To/From sip-uri's host, I assume that there will currently be poor
interoperability if devices adjust things per section 2.2's flexibility
(beyond hex case) within a transaction or dialog.

I haven't received any feedback concerning impacts of section 2.5.5.
However I assume that they should not be considered equivalent to their
IPv4 addresses from a SIP perspective.  And other IPv6 addresses are
also not equivalent to their IPv4 counterpart; for instance "::1" does
not equal "127.0.0.1".

For prior threads... the following were my initial questions posted to
sip-implementors.  The first reflects questions related to rfc4291
section 2.2.  The second reflects questions related to section 2.5.5.

https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/sip-implementors/2007-October/01
7678.html

https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/sip-implementors/2007-October/01
7692.html

_______________________________________________
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