RFC3896, section 3.2.2 says:
"A host identified by an Internet Protocol literal address, version 6
[RFC3513] or later, is distinguished by enclosing the IP literal
within square brackets ("[" and "]"). This is the only place where
square bracket characters are allowed in the URI syntax."
It looks like RFC3896 has the error, the definition for URI needs to updated
to be the following:
URI = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ] [ "#" fragment ]
hier-part = "//" authority path-abempty
/ path-absolute
/ path-rootless
/ path-empty
/ authority
Regards,
Hisham
On 19/12/2008, Brett Tate <[email protected]> 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).
>
> 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:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 5:43 PM
> > To: Brett Tate
> > Cc: [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: [Sip] Question regarding conflicting grammar for
> > IPV6 SIP URI andRFC 3986
> >
> > Brett Tate wrote:
> > > Greetings,
> > >
> > > Mike's interpretation looks correct. Is this something
> > that should be
> > > fixed? 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: v...@{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 [email protected] for questions on current sip
> Use [email protected] 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 [email protected] for questions on current sip
Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip
