Whatever the merits of this, please do not suggest using a SIPPING document to change the SIP protocol. We are getting too many of these odd updates spread around in too many documents. If this really is a bug in RFC 3261, then use the essential corrections process we are working on to change this.
Regards Keith > -----Original Message----- > From: Gonzalo Camarillo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 9:17 AM > To: sip > Cc: Brett Tate > Subject: [Sip] URI comparison rules - IPv6 addresses > > Hi, > > Brett brought this up in the SIP Implementors mailing list. > The following IPv6 addresses are supposed to be equivalent: > > [::ffff:192.0.2.128] and [::ffff:c000:280] [2001:db8::9:1] > and [2001:db8::9:01] [0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:129.144.52.38] and > [::FFFF:129.144.52.38] > > Now, let's say I need to compare > sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]::ffff:192.0.2.128] and > sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]::ffff:c000:280]. Should we consider these URIs to > be equivalent or not? > > My proposal is that we clarify that IPv6 address comparison > happens at the binary level, not at the textual level. We > could log a bug against RFC3261, and try and add such a > clarification to the IPv6 transition document (I will need to > ask the ADs whether or not we can add this in AUTH48). > > Cheers, > > Gonzalo > > > _______________________________________________ > Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip > This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use > [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip > Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip > _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
