I'm very support of this draft and think it should move forward but I have a
NIT to pick with it.
It says the ABNF in 3261 is incorrect and this one corrects it. I don't believe
that is correct. I believe the ABNF in this draft is more specific than the one
in 3261 but they are both correct.
Cullen,
I believe that the RFC 3261 ABNF *is* plain incorrect. It allows the
generation of text representations including ::: and that is
clearly not intended to be allowed by the description in RFC 4291.
(Being precise, it says The :: can only appear once in an address.
whereas I can find it
I'd like to note that the authors are aware that
draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation-07 is now
proposed for the standards track, and this may mean
it becomes a normative reference for sip-ipv6-abnf-fix
(and applicable to SIP implementations).
Brian Carpenter
On 2010-03-06 12:30, The
The IESG has received a request from the Session Initiation Protocol WG
(sip) to consider the following document:
- 'Essential correction for IPv6 ABNF and URI comparison in RFC3261 '
draft-ietf-sip-ipv6-abnf-fix-04.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few
