Brett Tate wrote:
Greetings,
Mike's interpretation looks correct. Is this something that should be
fixed? If so, should the fix be placed within
draft-ietf-sip-ipv6-abnf-fix?
What should the fix be? Mike's claim is that rfc3261
violates rfc3986, yet rfc3986 is internally consistent
in that it requires IPv6 literals to be enclosed in "[" and "]",
viz:
IP-literal = "[" ( IPv6address / IPvFuture ) "]"
At the same time, rfc3261 is internally consistent in that
it requires IPv6reference to be enclosed in "[" and "]", viz:
IPv6reference = "[" IPv6address "]"
Furthermore, I don't think the intent is to produce SIP-URI (as
defined in rfc3261) from a URI (as defined in rfc3986), is it?
Note that rfc3986 defines URI as:
URI = scheme ":" hier-part ...
heir-part = "//" ...
If this was true, a SIP URI would need to be produced as:
sip://[2001:db8:10] ...
In other words, I am trying to understand what the exact
problem is before we try to figure out where to put the
fix in...
Thanks,
- vijay
--
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA)
Email: v...@{alcatel-lucent.com,bell-labs.com,acm.org}
Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www.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
