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

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Tue, 27 April 2010 23:11 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 BF2B03A677E for <sip@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Apr 2010 16:11:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.445
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.445 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.155, BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
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 nUPm8W0ANGGZ for <sip@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Apr 2010 16:11:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E6AB3A6898 for <sip@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Apr 2010 16:11:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hydra-3.local (ppp-70-249-147-216.dsl.rcsntx.swbell.net [70.249.147.216]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o3RNBfmg028617 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 27 Apr 2010 18:11:41 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
Message-ID: <4BD76F2D.8020003@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 18:11:41 -0500
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.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> <4BD6F01A.90709@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4BD6F01A.90709@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 70.249.147.216 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
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 23:11:58 -0000

On 4/27/10 09:09, Apr 27, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>
>
> 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.

It is now logged as http://bugs.sipit.net/show_bug.cgi?id=777

/a

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email