Re: [Sip] Question regarding conflicting grammar for IPV6 SIP URI andRFC 3986

Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com> Fri, 19 December 2008 00:11 UTC

Return-Path: <sip-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: sip-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-sip-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 958953A690D; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:11:20 -0800 (PST)
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 AD4753A690D for <sip@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:11:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.955
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.955 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.556, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_37=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_39=0.6]
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 NouaFZmuhsGA for <sip@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:11:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from etmail.acmepacket.com (etmail.acmepacket.com [216.41.24.6]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDAC83A68C6 for <SIP@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:11:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.acmepacket.com (216.41.24.7) by etmail.acmepacket.com (216.41.24.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.291.1; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 19:09:36 -0500
Received: from mail.acmepacket.com ([127.0.0.1]) by mail ([127.0.0.1]) with mapi; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 19:09:33 -0500
From: Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
To: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@alcatel-lucent.com>, Brett Tate <brett@broadsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 19:09:57 -0500
Thread-Topic: [Sip] Question regarding conflicting grammar for IPV6 SIP URI andRFC 3986
Thread-Index: AclhYca+KjUI3wS+QGSEgI7xjZHx9QAC7O9Q
Message-ID: <E6C2E8958BA59A4FB960963D475F7AC31386ADFB10@mail>
References: <BBE61D1553D8A34F812FF87377B2935F062680CF@ATL1VEXC020.usdom003.tco.tc> <494AD1EA.30506@alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <494AD1EA.30506@alcatel-lucent.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "SIP@ietf.org" <SIP@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Sip] Question regarding conflicting grammar for IPV6 SIP URI andRFC 3986
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-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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: sip-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: sip-bounces@ietf.org

The SIP URI is not the only one with this problem - RFC 3860 (im-URI), RFC 3859 (pres-URI), RFC 3508 (h323-URI), and who knows what else violate that rule.

Seems to me any "fixing" should be done to RFC 3986, probably as an errata.

-hadriel


> -----Original Message-----
> From: sip-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sip-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Vijay K. Gurbani
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 5:43 PM
> To: Brett Tate
> Cc: SIP@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Sip] Question regarding conflicting grammar for IPV6 SIP URI
> andRFC 3986
>
> Brett Tate wrote:
> > Greetings,
> >
> > Mike's interpretation looks correct.  Is this something that should be
> > fixed?  If so, should the fix be placed within
> > draft-ietf-sip-ipv6-abnf-fix?
>
> What should the fix be?  Mike's claim is that rfc3261
> violates rfc3986, yet rfc3986 is internally consistent
> in that it requires IPv6 literals to be enclosed in "[" and "]",
> viz:
>
>     IP-literal = "[" ( IPv6address / IPvFuture  ) "]"
>
> At the same time, rfc3261 is internally consistent in that
> it requires IPv6reference to be enclosed in "[" and "]", viz:
>
>    IPv6reference  =  "[" IPv6address "]"
>
> Furthermore, I don't think the intent is to produce SIP-URI (as
> defined in rfc3261) from a URI (as defined in rfc3986), is it?
> Note that rfc3986 defines URI as:
>
>    URI = scheme ":" hier-part ...
>    heir-part = "//" ...
>
> If this was true, a SIP URI would need to be produced as:
>
>    sip://[2001:db8:10] ...
>
> In other words, I am trying to understand what the exact
> problem is before we try to figure out where to put the
> fix in...
>
> Thanks,
>
> - vijay
> --
> Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
> 1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA)
> Email: vkg@{alcatel-lucent.com,bell-labs.com,acm.org}
> Web:   http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/
> _______________________________________________
> Sip mailing list  https://www.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
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.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