IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com> Tue, 27 April 2010 14:13 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: sip@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sip@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 772533A6A93 for <sip@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Apr 2010 07:13:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.35
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.35 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.249, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S-EHUhre-rxb for <sip@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Apr 2010 07:13:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com (rtp-iport-2.cisco.com [64.102.122.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB5843A6B5C for <sip@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Apr 2010 07:09:46 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAFON1ktAZnwM/2dsb2JhbACcTXGmRokekQCFDgQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.52,280,1270425600"; d="scan'208";a="105662380"
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com ([64.102.124.12]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Apr 2010 14:09:33 +0000
Received: from [161.44.174.156] (dhcp-161-44-174-156.cisco.com [161.44.174.156]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o3RE9XMB029619; Tue, 27 Apr 2010 14:09:33 GMT
Message-ID: <4BD6F01A.90709@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 10:09:30 -0400
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
References: <20100305233033.8662628C400@core3.amsl.com> <4B919F23.7030502@cisco.com> <4BD60D89.3070902@bell-labs.com> <4BD61B92.8080708@cisco.com> <4BD6E79C.4040907@nostrum.com> <4BD6E896.7070506@digium.com> <4BD6EA0C.6030601@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <4BD6EA0C.6030601@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: SIP IETF <sip@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Sip] Last Call: draft-ietf-sip-ipv6-abnf-fix (Essential correction for IPv6 ABNF and URI comparison in RFC3261) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol <sip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip>
List-Post: <mailto:sip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 14:13:05 -0000

Adam Roach wrote:

> 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.

That works for me.

	Thanks,
	Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email