[Sipping] Comments on draft-ietf-sipping-ipv6-torture-tests-01.txt

Hi All, 

Here are few comments on the draft ipv6-torture-tests-01.txt.

1. Lets not allow IPV6 addresses with out [ & ], this is a deviation
from RFC 3261 also.
This would definitely lead to interoperability issues later.

		Snippet from rfc.3261

		IPv6reference  =  "[" IPv6address "]"
		Here "[" "]" means mandatory to have for this component

		Ref:
		IPv4address    =  1*3DIGIT "." 1*3DIGIT "." 1*3DIGIT "."
1*3DIGIT
		for instance we can't have IP address without . For an
IPv4 addresses

2. Replace all instances of umabiguous with unambiguous
Search for all the instances in the draft.

3. via-received not including delimiters [ & ] would make
implementations complex or why don't we make sure all IPv6 addresses
always accompany with delimiters [ & ]. This loop hole will definitely
lead to interoperability issues some time later....
	sec 4.5 of the draft ipv6-torture-tests-01.

Even though some implementations accept IPv6 addresses without [ ], that
is a deviation from standards, but that should not be the criteria to
allow IPv6 without [ ].

4. 
Sec 4.5 param-2 of draft ipv6-torture-tests-01 is not valid with respect
to 3261
	hence let us remove this test case

   The OPTIONS request below contains an IPv6 address in the Via
   received parameter without the adorning "[" and "]".  This request is
   valid according to the grammar in RFC3261.

The above statement is a deviation from what is mentioned in 3261.

   Message Details: param-2

     OPTIONS sip:[2001:db8::10] SIP/2.0
     To: sip:user@example.com
     From: sip:user@example.com;tag=81x2
     <allOneLine>
     Via: SIP/2.0/UDP [2001:db8::9:1];received=2001:db8::9:255;
     branch=z9hG4bKas3
     </allOneLine>
     Call-ID: SSG95523997077@hlau_4100
     Max-Forwards: 70
     Contact: "Caller" <sip:caller@[2001:db8::1]>
     CSeq: 921 OPTIONS
     Content-Length: 0

5. 
Ref: 4.6.  SIP request with IPv6 addresses in SDP body

Even here also shall we mandate addresses are with [ & ]

This IPv6 address is definitely not inline with what is been specified
in 3261. 

I understand we would not receive IP:PORT in SDP, we can assume what is
been mentioned here is valid to accept, but this is a deviation from
RFC.3261. if we agree that we are deviating from 3261. Shall we mention
the same as a note in the draft? 

Thanks,
Nataraju A B
Technical Lead
bnataraju@sonusnet.com
t +91 80 4190 2681
f +91 80 4190 2610
Unit 2, 8th Floor, Inventor Block
ITPL, Whitefield Road
Bangalore- 560066, India
www.sonusnet.com <http://www.sonusnet.com/>     

Deliver the Future First with Sonus Networks.