• Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG
  • Awaiting Expert Review/Resolution of Issues Raised
  • Awaiting External Review/Resolution of Issues Raised
  • Awaiting Merge with Other Document
  • Author or Editor Needed
  • Waiting for Referenced Document
  • Waiting for Referencing Document
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by AD
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by IESG
  • Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway
  • Other - see Comment Log

IETF :: sipclf

Current state: WG Document

Viewing the last 20 entries. Show full log.

(System)

RFC published

(System)

RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48

(System)

IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor

(System)

IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors

(System)

IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress

(System)

IANA Action state changed to In Progress

Cindy Morgan

State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent

Amy Vezza

State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent

Amy Vezza

IESG has approved the document

Amy Vezza

Closed "Approve" ballot

Amy Vezza

Ballot approval text was generated

Amy Vezza

State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup

Pete Resnick

Ballot comment text updated for Pete Resnick

Gonzalo Salgueiro

New revision available

Benoit Claise

[Ballot Position Update] Position for Benoit Claise has been changed to No Objection from Discuss

Pete Resnick

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for addressing my earlier comments. However, the changes you made to the IP Address definitions in section 4.2 got things a bit mashed up. For example, the way you have it written now sounds like the port number is only in decimal notation if used with IPv4 addresses, which I know was not your intention. The other thing I noticed was that the reference to RFC 5952 is to section 6 (i.e., just the port number discussion). You don't say specifically what the numeric representation (hex or decimal) of the address itself is. I presume you are simply taking the rules from sections 4 and 5, which use hex for everything except in the case of special addresses where the last 32 bits are dotted decimal.

I suggest the following replacements (which also get rid of the superfluous MUSTs):

Destination IP address:port The IP address of the downstream server
and the port number, separated by a single ':'. IPv4 addresses
are represented in "dotted decimal" notation as per [RFC1166].
IPv6 addresses are represented using the hexadecimal notation
detailed in Section 4 of [RFC5952] (or the special-case mixed
hexadecimal and decimal notation detailed in Section 5 of
[RFC5952]) and enclosed in square brackets ('[' and ']').

Source IP address:port The IP address of the upstream client and the
port number over which the SIP message was received, separated
by a single ':'. IPv4 addresses are represented in "dotted
decimal" notation as per [RFC1166]. IPv6 addresses are
represented using the hexadecimal notation detailed in Section 4
of [RFC5952] (or the special-case mixed hexadecimal and decimal
notation detailed in Section 5 of [RFC5952]) and enclosed in
square brackets ('[' and ']').

Pete Resnick

[Ballot Position Update] Position for Pete Resnick has been changed to Yes from Discuss

Stephen Farrell

[Ballot Position Update] Position for Stephen Farrell has been changed to No Objection from Discuss

(System)

Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed

Gonzalo Salgueiro

New revision available

Viewing the last 20 entries. Show full log.