Brett Tate wrote:
Intentional or not, the sip-uri (excluding IPv6reference) appears to not violate extending rfc2396's absoluteURI because the definition was a structured subset of opaque_part. However the introduction of brackets to enclose an IPv6 address causes the sip-uri to no longer be a valid absoluteURI (rfc2396) or absolute-URI (rfc3986).
3986 accomodates IPv6 addresses within in "authority" which seems to serve roughly the same role as "[ userinfo ] hostport" in SIP-URI. But "authority" is always preceded by "//", so it doesn't work for sip.
To fit a sip uri within 3986 I think you must start with: URI = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ] [ "#" fragment ] hier-part = path-rootless path-rootless = segment-nz *( "/" segment ) segment-nz = 1*pchar pchar = unreserved / pct-encoded / sub-delims / ":" / "@" unreserved = ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "." / "_" / "~"Not only does the above exclude the IPv6 syntax, it also excludes lots of other things that are commonly used in the userinfo portion of sip URIs.
I don't know if this is of practical concern or not. The SIP URI is defined by 3261. Certainly 3261 didn't call for it to be compatible with 3986. Yet it would be *nice* if it was for compatibility with software that treats URIs, including SIP URIs generically. But I don't know how important that is in practice.
To fit 3986 well, I think would have to aim for fitting into:
URI = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ] [ "#" fragment ]
hier-part = "//" authority path-abempty
authority = [ userinfo "@" ] host [ ":" port ]
But that would require SIP-URIs like sip://alice at atlanta.com
and I don't think we are going to migrate to that any time soon.
Don't mailto URIs have similar problems? What are they doing about it?
Thanks,
Paul
I'm currently not sure if a fix is really needed or how best to correct it. Escaping the brackets might work; however that might cause more headaches.-----Original Message-----From: Vijay K. Gurbani [mailto:vkg at alcatel-lucent.com] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 5:43 PMTo: Brett Tate Cc: SIP at ietf.orgSubject: Re: [Sip] Question regarding conflicting grammar for IPV6 SIP URI andRFC 3986Brett Tate wrote:that should beGreetings,Mike's interpretation looks correct. Is this somethingfixed? 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: vkg at {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 sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip Use sipping at ietf.org 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 sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip Use sipping at ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip