Hi,
it is not really a bug. It is a clarification.
Cheers,
Gonzalo
DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
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
