Vijay K. Gurbani wrote: > Folks: Before the Dallas IETF, I had sent an email to gauge > consensus on whether the "received" parameter should have the > delimiters '[' and ']' when its content is an IPv6 address. > That is: > > Via: SIP/2.0/TCP foo.example.com;received=[2001::db8];branch=... > > versus: > > Via: SIP/2.0/TCP foo.example.com;received=2001::db8;branch=... > > ... > > Can folks who have IPv6 implementations kindly post what their > behavior is? Also, does anyone know how reSIProcate treats this?
Resip currently does *not* use the brackets for v6 addresses on the received parameter. In practice, the received parameter is interpreted *almost* exclusively by the entity that wrote it -- so interoperability shouldn't be as substantially harmed by differing interpretations than might it first appear. Those entities using the received parameter as a kind of poor-man's STUN may run into issues, but this problem should become increasingly rare as people use actual STUN instead. I'm inclined to leave it as is -- the current syntax, although vaguely nonintuitive, is unambiguous and does not require two-pass parsing to get right. (If there were a colon-delimited port number, that would make it more difficult; but the received parameter never contains a port number). And, as I've mentioned above, any implementation that gets this this wrong will generally still interoperate, since the information in the received parameter is generally no-one's business but the proxy who generated it. /a _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
