Attending to pending email ... sorry for the delayed response.
On 03/05/2010 06:17 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
I see this is very close to done. I'm sorry to only be looking at it now. While I don't see a problem with what is in this, I do see a logical omission: This calls out that comparison of the binary forms of the ip address, and this fixes a problem with ipv4 as well as ipv6. A similar problem exists for the port number: are <sip:f...@bar:1234> and <sip:f...@bar:01234> the same??? ISTM that binary comparison should also be used for port numbers. But is it worth pulling this back to fix that???
Paul: <sip:f...@bar:01234> could also be interpreted as the digits comprising the port "1234" to be in base 8 (leading 0 signifies an octal base.) Writing leading zeroes for IPv4 address is not prevalent; by the same token, representing ports in octal base is not prevalent either. So I am inclined to let sleeping dogs lie. However, if the sponsoring AD or anyone monitoring this list feels strongly, I don't mind adding a sentence or two to this effect in the draft. Thanks, - vijay _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is essentially closed and only used for finishing old business. Use [email protected] for questions on how to develop a SIP implementation. Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip. Use [email protected] for issues related to maintenance of the core SIP specifications.
