I would also think the problem should be solved within RFC3986, for a
pure economic reason.
On a quick scan through registered URI schemes I identified the
following schemes having the same problem as sip/sips:
mailto, im, pres, h323, iax, xmpp.
and I may have missed some. Makes more than have a dozen RFCs to be
updated against one (RFC3986).
Regards,
Ernst
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
> Behalf Of Hadriel Kaplan
> Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 3:28 AM
> To: Theo Zourzouvillys
> Cc: SIP; Dean Willis
> Subject: Re: [Sip] Question regarding conflicting grammar for
> IPV6 SIP URI andRFC 3986
>
>
> OK, sounds useful enough - in a previous email from Cullen on
> this topic (with his AD hat), he suggested emailing the APPS
> Area list ([email protected]) since rfc3986 is in their camp.
>
> -hadriel
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Theo Zourzouvillys [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 7:36 PM
> >
> > > How does it affect anything for common URI formats not to
> comply with
> > it?
> >
> > We'd be saying that a SIP URI is no longer guaranteed to be
> compatible
> > with the generic URI syntax, and there in lies dragons.
> >
> > While it would unlikely have any direct effect on SIP elements
> > themselves, there are a whole bunch of assumptions made
> (and we should
> > be able to continue to make) around a SIP URI being compatible with
> > the syntax of a URI, notably in 3rd party tools. some things that
> > spring to mind that would be affected are:
> >
> > - XML Schema syntax for a URI
> > - in <a href="xxx"> - i.e, any hyperlink on a HTML page.
> > - PHP (or any other language) parse_uri()
> > - draft-roach-sip-http-subscribe Link header values
> > - subjectAltName URI in a SSL certificate
> > - a RDBMS "URI" data type
> >
> > ... being able to put a SIP URI anywhere that there is a "URI" field
> > is a fairly useful thing for developers when it comes to
> re-usability
> >
> > even worse, anything that presumes they are a URI will work most the
> > time, until an IPv6 address is used.
> >
> > > (or really, for *it* not to comply with common URI formats)
> >
> > i'm not sure how many other common URI formats have notably been
> > affected by the missing IPv6 yet: the lack of universal IPv6
> > deployment along with SIP being fairly likely to want to include
> > literal IPv6 addresses in the URI makes it more obvious for us to
> > notice other other schemes, so perhaps we're just ahead of the game?
> >
> > ~ Theo
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
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
