IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Rick van Rein <rick@openfortress.nl> Thu, 26 April 2012 09:29 UTC

Return-Path: <rick@openfortress.nl>
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 3F4CB21F86E1; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 02:29:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.347
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.790, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545]
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 yvw-ypCTxy77; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 02:29:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fame.vanrein.org (openfortress.nl [213.189.19.244]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DD8E21F86DA; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 02:28:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from phantom.vanrein.org (phantom.vanrein.org [83.161.146.46]) by fame.vanrein.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3F764040D1; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:28:46 +0100 (BST)
Received: by phantom.vanrein.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 90ECA2255C; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 09:37:07 +0000 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 09:37:07 +0000
From: Rick van Rein <rick@openfortress.nl>
To: "Olle E. Johansson" <oej@edvina.net>
Message-ID: <20120426093707.GE27002@newphantom.local>
References: <20120426092725.GC27002@newphantom.local> <DAE97705-CFFF-4E41-B811-B9E14F2F8EDB@edvina.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <DAE97705-CFFF-4E41-B811-B9E14F2F8EDB@edvina.net>
X-My-Coolest-Hack: http://rick.vanrein.org/linux/badram -> Exploit broken RAM
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
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 09:29:03 -0000

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?

> 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:


Thanks,
 -Rick

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email