Pekka Pessi wrote: > "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>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. > > It should have. Beer should be served in bigger glasses, too.
Yes, I don't think you will have problems establishing consensus around the beer-and-the-glass part ;-) > Accept both, generate format according to the RFC 3261 grammar (no > brackets). That is probably what should be the case if we decide to leave the ABNF as-is. > The problem is that you are a bit late. It is written that way in > RFC 3261. Every RFC-3261-compliant device, supporting IPv6 or not, > must be able to handle Via lines containing the RFC3261-style > received parameter with naked IPv6address. RFC 3261 has ambiguities - this is one of them, probably the most benign, but an ambiguity nonetheless. With a little work, this can be easily sorted out in one of the following ways: (1) Have the sipping IPv6 torture test document update the IPv6 ABNF (although, this will require it to be a standards- track document, and not an informational). (2) Open and maintain a bug in bugs.sipit.net, pointing new developers to the appropriate behavior. (3) Write a quick draft updating the IPv6 ABNF in RFC 3261. (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. Any preferences? Thanks, - vijay _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
