Re: [Sip] Errant Proxy Behavior?

Dale.Worley@comcast.net Fri, 23 November 2007 23:38 UTC

Return-path: <sip-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ivi66-00039a-Px; Fri, 23 Nov 2007 18:38:10 -0500
Received: from sip by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Ivi65-00039N-Ex for sip-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Nov 2007 18:38:09 -0500
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ivi65-00038n-4j for sip@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Nov 2007 18:38:09 -0500
Received: from qmta08.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.80]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ivi64-00060U-MO for sip@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Nov 2007 18:38:09 -0500
Received: from OMTA06.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.51]) by QMTA08.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id GNlE1Y00816AWCU0A02F00; Fri, 23 Nov 2007 23:38:11 +0000
Received: from dragon.ariadne.com ([24.34.79.42]) by OMTA06.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id GPe91Y0060umElk0800000; Fri, 23 Nov 2007 23:38:11 +0000
X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=5NpDE1_nZ8zolrb8gY0A:9 a=Q3gvGodsQ5CtACcDhSYA:7 a=CT61Ba0hZWGJBJ5b8c1jDLc6lTMA:4 a=0MAqpqVwYqEA:10 a=8y7tGHue6YMA:10
Received: from dragon.ariadne.com (dragon.ariadne.com [127.0.0.1]) by dragon.ariadne.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id lANNc5SV022579 for <sip@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Nov 2007 18:38:05 -0500
Received: (from worley@localhost) by dragon.ariadne.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id lANNc5Au022575; Fri, 23 Nov 2007 18:38:05 -0500
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 18:38:05 -0500
Message-Id: <200711232338.lANNc5Au022575@dragon.ariadne.com>
To: sip@ietf.org
From: Dale.Worley@comcast.net
In-reply-to: <04F6CAAC-A1DD-4F42-A343-E36D2B7D1477@nostrum.com> (rjsparks@nostrum.com)
Subject: Re: [Sip] Errant Proxy Behavior?
References: <9d6632e0711211020t15344ca7i11022838e505cdc2@mail.gmail.com> <04F6CAAC-A1DD-4F42-A343-E36D2B7D1477@nostrum.com>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3
X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol <sip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:sip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: sip-bounces@ietf.org

   From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>

   Now, for the particular transformation you're describing - it's not  
   legal. Replacing a %41 with an 'A' or vice-versa would be legal (but  
   unwise). "$", on the other hand, is special.

   The text in section 19.1.4 (URI Comparison) says:
   ...
      SIP and SIPS URIs are compared for equality
       according to the following rules:
   ...
	  o  Characters other than those in the "reserved" set (see RFC  
   2396
	     [5]) are equivalent to their ""%" HEX HEX" encoding.

   But

	  reserved    =  ";" / "/" / "?" / ":" / "@" / "&" / "=" / "+"
			 / "$" / ","

Hmmmm, I agree that this is what the RFCs say, but is it what we
really want?  That '%41' is expected to be equivalent to 'A' but '%24'
is *not* equivalent to '$', in a context where '$' is a character with
no exceptional semantics?  That seems like opening a big can of worms.

Dale


_______________________________________________
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