It's ambiguous with path-rootless, no? But anyway I think the AD's should weigh in on what WG should work on the fix. The fix needs to be applicable to all URIs, and I don't think we have all the right folks to know what the rfc3986 semantics really means generally.
-hadriel > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul > Kyzivat > Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 2:56 PM > To: Vijay K. Gurbani > Cc: IETF SIP List > Subject: Re: [Sip] Summary (Was: [Re: Question regarding conflicting > grammar for IPV6 SIP URI andRFC 3986]) > > Vijay, > > I agree with the direction - to change 3986. > I *think* the proposed syntax sounds right, though I haven't studied the > grammar carefully to ensure that it is then unambiguous. (But I think I > recall seeing that it is already ambiguous and falls back on the "first > matching production wins" to resolve that conflict.) > > Thanks, > Paul > > Vijay K. Gurbani wrote: > > All: So, to summarize a WG position on this and chart a course > > forward to close this item, these are the facts: > > > > 1) RFC3261 is internally consistent in specifying IPv6 literals > > (i.e., enclosed in "[" and "]"). > > > > 2) RFC3986 is internally consistent in IPv6 literals as well. > > > > 3) It was not the intention of rfc3261 to make the SIP URI > > compatible with rfc2396 URI (rfc3986 came later.) And in fact, > > if we made the SIP URI compatible with rfc3986, we won't get > > too far for the reason I pointed out early: > > > > 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] ... > > > > Which, I presume, is not going to happen any time soon (and > > as Hadriel points out, other URIs (im, pres, etc.) suffer > > the same fate. > > > > Therefore, the only conclusion we can arrive to is that > > rfc3986 should be modified. > > > > If so, then what should the modification be and who should > > do it? For the "who": Given that rfc3986 did not come out of a > > WG, there is no mailing list to address this issue on. So, > > the best we can do is as Hadriel suggested: issue an errata. > > > > For the "what", any suggestions? I think Hisham's suggestion > > is probably the least intrusive one to rfc3986's ABNF while > > allowing one to generate rfc3261 SIP URIs. To recap: > > > > OLD: > > URI = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ] [ "#" fragment ] > > hier-part = "//" authority path-abempty > > / path-absolute > > / path-rootless > > / path-empty > > authority = [ userinfo "@" ] host [ ":" port ] > > > > NEW: > > URI = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ] [ "#" fragment ] > > hier-part = "//" authority path-abempty > > / path-absolute > > / path-rootless > > / path-empty > > / authority ***** Newly added line ***** > > > > authority = [ userinfo "@" ] host [ ":" port ] > > > > Does this cause any other problems? > > > > Thoughts, comments? If you agree, please say so; that way > > we can summarize this as the WG position allowing for the > > next steps to happen (i.e., file errata, etc.) > > > > Thanks, > > > > - vijay > _______________________________________________ > 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
