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

I see this is very close to done.
I'm sorry to only be looking at it now.
While I don't see a problem with what is in this,
I do see a logical omission:

This calls out that comparison of the binary forms of the ip address, 
and this fixes a problem with ipv4 as well as ipv6.

A similar problem exists for the port number:
are <sip:foo@bar:1234> and <sip:foo@bar:01234> the same???

ISTM that binary comparison should also be used for port numbers.

But is it worth pulling this back to fix that???

	Thanks,
	Paul

The IESG wrote:
> The IESG has received a request from the Session Initiation Protocol WG 
> (sip) to consider the following document:
> 
> - 'Essential correction for IPv6 ABNF and URI comparison in RFC3261 '
>    <draft-ietf-sip-ipv6-abnf-fix-04.txt> as a Proposed Standard
> 
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action.  Please send substantive comments to the
> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2010-03-19. Exceptionally, 
> comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please 
> retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> 
> The file can be obtained via
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-ipv6-abnf-fix-04.txt
> 
> 
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=16959&rfc_flag=0
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
> This list is essentially closed and only used for finishing old business.
> Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on how to develop a SIP implementation.
> Use dispatch@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip.
> Use sipcore@ietf.org for issues related to maintenance of the core SIP specifications.
> 