RE: [Sip] comments on draft-gurbani-sip-ipv6-abnf-fix-00

["Brett Tate" <brett at broadsoft.com>]

> 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 sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping at ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip