Pekka Pessi wrote:
> What is the bug there? Should we have
>
> 1) via-received = "received" EQUAL (IPv4address / IPv6reference)
Yes, this one.
>> (4) Agree that we will leave the representation of the
>> received parameter as-is in RFC 3261, but put leniency torture
>> tests around this in the sipping IPv6 torture test document.
>
> Hm, meaning that everyone should accept both IPv6address and
> IPv6reference in the via-received?
Yes, although this means that the ABNF is implicitly your
(2) from the list above; i.e.,
2) via-received = "received" EQUAL (IPv4address / IPv6address /
IPv6reference)
However, agreeing to leave the representation of the "received"
parameter as-is is skirting around this issue. I would rather
we normatively chose (1), and colloquially specified that (2) is
allowed from a leniency viewpoint.
Thanks,
- vijay
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
