Hello,
The document Albrecht originally pointed to is now an Appendix to ITU-T
H.248.49. This was done to ensure that Albrecht's work was captured. The
latest draft can be found at:
http://ftp3.itu.int/av-arch/avc-site/2005-2008/0703_She/TD-62.zip
I think Randell's point that the use of "-" in attribute names between
RFC2327 and RFC4566 should also be captured in the Appendix. Better that
these sorts of issues are documented. Something along the lines of:
"I.2.2.1 RFC 4566, “a=” attribute
The syntax of RFC2327 does not support the use of “-“ in an attribute
name however the syntax of RFC4566 has been updated to support the
inclusion of “-“. Therefore the use of attribute names containing “-“ is
problematic for RFC2327 implementations however several examples of
attribute names containing “-“ were registered prior to the definition
of RFC4566. RFC2327 Implementors may consider exceptions when parsing an
“a=” where these attribute names containing “-“ are involved. "
Another way to lessen the problem would be that the internet drafts
using "-" in the attribute name remove "-" from the draft before going
RFC and the IANA registration procedures be updated to ensure that "-"
isn't used in the future for names. From looking at the IANA
registrations the widespread use of "-" seems to be a relatively recent
phenomena. I guess those who have implemented the drafts wouldn't be
happy though :).....
Regards, Christian
Dan Wing wrote:
> ...
>
>> Sure, but there's still an issue here, or at least something needing
>> clarification: Is RFC 4568 trying to refer to a=key-mgmt when it uses
>> a=keymgt?
>>
>
> I can only expect that was the intent, yes. This should be noted
> via http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.html (which isn't ideal, but it's
> all we have). Might want to ping the authors first to make sure that
> was their intent.
>
>
>> It seems like RFC 4566 section 10 (Summary of changes since RFC 2327)
>> should have mentioned this issue, and others where complying with 4566
>> would make you (at least in theory) not interoperable with RFC 2327.
>> All 4566 says about it is:
>>
>> The ABNF grammar in Section 9 has been extensively revised and
>> updated, correcting a number of mistakes and incorporating the RFC
>> 3266 IPv6 extensions. Known inconsistencies between the
>> grammar and
>> the specification text have been resolved.
>>
>
> Without going into a case-by-case analysis of those changes, I dunno
> if there would be much value in highlighting "-" in attribute names;
> highlighting it might cause some readers of the errata to assume that
> was the only change, which could make RFC4566 'compliance' worse (if
> that was thought by some implementor to be the only substantive
> change to the grammar).
>
> -d
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
