Re: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-ipv6-abnf-fix-04

[Brett Tate <[e-mail]>]

It looks like draft-ietf-sip-ipv6-abnf-fix-04 section 3.1 already does the syntax adjustment for IPv4address.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> Robert Sparks
> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 3:49 PM
> To: Vijay K. Gurbani
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-ipv6-abnf-fix-04
> 
> No, I don't think trying to make that syntax change is appropriate for
> this draft at this point
> in its life-cycle.
> 
> RjS
> 
> On Jan 29, 2010, at 2:40 PM, Vijay K. Gurbani wrote:
> 
> > Robert: Please see question directed to you at the end of this
> > email.
> >
> > Dale Worley wrote:
> >> As long as we're explicating the syntax, it seems reasonable to
> >> enunciate what "everybody knows" about its interpretation.
> >
> > Dale: I am not being an obstructionist here, so please
> > do not take the comments as such.
> >
> > I believe that "everybody knows" that dotted-decimal is
> > well, dotted-"decimal" and not dotted-"octal".  The fact
> > that some C libraries interpret the leftmost 0 as a
> > hint to enter octal mode is unfortunate, but I don't see
> > how putting admonitions here will solve that particular
> > problem.
> >
> > That said, one quick observation is that the production rule for
> > <IPv4address> literal defined in rfc3986 is more close
> > to your intent than the one defined in rfc3261.  More
> > specifically, here they are:
> >
> > rfc3986:
> >
> > A host identified by an IPv4 literal address is represented in
> > dotted-decimal notation (a sequence of four decimal numbers in the
> > range 0 to 255, separated by "."), as described in [RFC1123] by
> > reference to [RFC0952].  Note that other forms of dotted notation may
> > be interpreted on some platforms, as described in Section 7.4, but
> > only the dotted-decimal form of four octets is allowed by this
> > grammar.
> >
> >   IPv4address = dec-octet "." dec-octet "." dec-octet "." dec-octet
> >
> >   dec-octet   = DIGIT                 ; 0-9
> >               / %x31-39 DIGIT         ; 10-99
> >               / "1" 2DIGIT            ; 100-199
> >               / "2" %x30-34 DIGIT     ; 200-249
> >               / "25" %x30-35          ; 250-255
> >
> > rfc3261:
> >
> > IPv4address    =  1*3DIGIT "." 1*3DIGIT "." 1*3DIGIT "." 1*3DIGIT
> >
> > So, we could deprecate the existing rfc3261 syntax for IPv4address
> > and replace it with the one for rfc3986.
> >
> > Robert: Is this okay with you?  If so, I can put the above change
> > in the draft as well.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > - vijay