Hi, Another difference between 2327 and 4566 is that some of the media types were removed from 4566, based on claims they aren't used anywhere.
At least one of them is. But, since that didn't affect the ABNF I guess it shouldn't be a problem from a parser perspective. Regards, Christer > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Dan Wing > Sent: 5. kesäkuuta 2007 5:23 > To: 'Christian Groves' > Cc: [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] [MMUSIC] RE: Problems with > RFC 2327 vs RFC4566, and between 4567 and 4568 > > I agree such issues should be documented. Add a caveat like: > > Beyond the addition of "-" in attribute names, there are > additional grammar differences between RFC2327 and > RFC4566; enumerating those changes is left as an exercise > for the reader > > and everything would be covered. > > -d > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Christian Groves [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 6:40 PM > > To: Dan Wing > > Cc: 'Randell Jesup'; [email protected]; > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] RE: Problems with RFC 2327 vs RFC 4566, and > > between 4567 and 4568 > > > > 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 > _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
