Re: [Uri-review] [sipcore] Proposal: sip6 URI scheme

"Olle E. Johansson" <oej@edvina.net> Thu, 26 April 2012 09:32 UTC

Return-Path: <oej@edvina.net>
X-Original-To: uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C86D621F87DC; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 02:32:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Wifgj+J2T1F7; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 02:32:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp7.webway.se (smtp7.webway.se [IPv6:2a02:920:212e::205]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BE3B21F87D8; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 02:32:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.1.27.118] (office.ipvision.dk [94.127.50.104]) by smtp7.webway.se (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 619CC754A8AA; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 09:32:54 +0000 (UTC)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: "Olle E. Johansson" <oej@edvina.net>
In-Reply-To: <20120426093707.GE27002@newphantom.local>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:32:53 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E36E3FD2-1B75-4C60-BDDF-76B065F64F59@edvina.net>
References: <20120426092725.GC27002@newphantom.local> <DAE97705-CFFF-4E41-B811-B9E14F2F8EDB@edvina.net> <20120426093707.GE27002@newphantom.local>
To: Rick van Rein <rick@openfortress.nl>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 04:22:09 -0700
Cc: uri-review@ietf.org, sipcore@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] [sipcore] Proposal: sip6 URI scheme
X-BeenThere: uri-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proposed URI Schemes <uri-review.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/uri-review>
List-Post: <mailto:uri-review@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 09:32:56 -0000

26 apr 2012 kl. 11:37 skrev Rick van Rein:

> Hello Olle,
> 
>> A new URI scheme doesn't make any sense, since a SIP uri can be resolved to many different hosts using NAPTR/SRV records.
> 
> This only helps with the SIP communication -- but it gives no certainty
> about RTP.  Interoperability between IPv4-only and IPv6-only relating to
> media can only be found when trying to setup a call, right?
But a URI scheme doesn't help here.
My softphone keeps moving between networks, some dual stack and some not.

> 
>> A phone that is dual stack can register with two contacts, one for each address family. ICE will take care of media handling.
> 
> There is no formal relation between the IP version used for SIP and used
> for RTP.  This is what I am proposing to solve with sip6:

The URI scheme is still WRONG. YOu might want to add a UA capability to the Contact registred.
That's something we should look into. Especially if you have a situation where a server needs to decide whether to force an RTP proxy or not.
According to the RFC the client should organize this itself with a TURN server, but in reality we might need to know on the server.


There's a separate SIPv6 mailing list operated by the SIP forum and a SIPv6 forum on Facebook if you want to join the discussion there too :-)

/O