Hi, draft-ietf-sip-ipv6-abnf-fix fixes an error on ABNF grammar for IPv6.
Also it proposes a new ABNF grammar for IPv4:
old one:
IPv4address = 1*3DIGIT "." 1*3DIGIT "." 1*3DIGIT "." 1*3DIGIT
new one:
IPv4address = dec-octet "." dec-octet "." dec-octet "." dec-octet
dec-octet = DIGIT ; 0-9
/ %x31-39 DIGIT ; 10-99
/ "1" 2DIGIT ; 100-199
/ "2" %x30-34 DIGIT ; 200-249
/ "25" %x30-35 ; 250-255
But the draft also does a question (that doesn't reply):
--------------------------------------------
2.2. Comparing URIs with textual representation of IP addresses
...
Note that the same ambiguity occurs for IPv4 addresses, i.e., is
192.0.2.128 = 192.00.02.128? However, IPv6, with its compressed
notation and the need to represent hybrid addresses (like IPv4-
mapped IPv6 addresses) makes the representation issue more acute.
The resolution discussed in Section 3.2 applies to textual
representations of both IPv6 and IPv4 addresses.
3.2. Clarification for comparison of URIs with textual representation of
IP addresses:
...
NEW:
o For two URIs to be equal, the user, password, host, and port
components must match. If the host component contains a textual
representation of IP addresses, then the representation of those
IP addresses may vary. If so, the host components are considered
to match if the different textual representations yield the same
binary IP address.
--------------------------------------------
So it seems that a comparision between 1.2.3.4 and 1.2.3.004 should return TRUE
but the fact is that ABNF grammar doesn't allow 1.2.3.004 but just 1.2.3.4.
Does it make sense?
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
