> I guess the purpose of this discussion is about this > particular draft, which intends to correct some mistakes > existing in some RFCs.
Yes; the draft is expanding beyond the current ABNF fix to also correct or more clearly document other IPv6 areas of rfc3261. > I am wondering if you will want to discuss about the impacts > of mapping between IPv6 address and IPv4 address? I'm not sure which aspect of mapping you are mentioning. Draft-ietf-sipping-v6-transition and draft-ietf-sipping-ipv6-torture-tests discuss some of the potential issues. > I feel like if we simply try to match the two from each > other, we will not be able to maintain the original design > beauties behind each address structure. Correct me if I am wrong. I'm not sure that I understand the matching comment. The current understanding is that an IPv6 address does not equal an IPv4 address from a SIP equality perspective. However there are obviously situations/services on a device where they might be treated the same: identity, access control, etcetera. There are situations where an IPv6 address contains an IPv4 address. However I currently doubt that we need to discuss the matter beyond highlighting such an address concerning equality and maybe additionally 503, looping, downgrading to IPv4, etcetera. _______________________________________________ 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
