Skip to main content

Essential Correction for IPv6 ABNF and URI Comparison in RFC 3261
draft-ietf-sip-ipv6-abnf-fix-05

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2010-05-24
05 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan
2010-05-24
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2010-05-24
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2010-05-24
05 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2010-05-24
05 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2010-05-24
05 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2010-05-21
05 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2010-05-20
2010-05-20
05 Cindy Morgan State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan
2010-05-20
05 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel
2010-05-20
05 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot comment]
I found the use of RFC 2119 "MUST" in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 a bit odd. I think you could have used "are …
[Ballot comment]
I found the use of RFC 2119 "MUST" in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 a bit odd. I think you could have used "are replaced" instead of "MUST be replaced" since your document *is* the implementation of the documentation.

But it not important enough to worry about.
2010-05-20
05 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica
2010-05-20
05 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2010-05-20
05 Gonzalo Camarillo [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Gonzalo Camarillo
2010-05-20
05 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Lars Eggert
2010-05-19
05 Sean Turner
[Ballot comment]
This is nitpicky, but I think you should point to [1] in the first sentence of the security consideration:

This document does not …
[Ballot comment]
This is nitpicky, but I think you should point to [1] in the first sentence of the security consideration:

This document does not introduce any security considerations in addition to those described in [1].
2010-05-19
05 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Sean Turner
2010-05-19
05 Russ Housley
[Ballot comment]
The Gen-ART Review by Suresh Krishnan on 17-May-2010 raises a point
  that deserves a response:

    The draft also fixes the …
[Ballot comment]
The Gen-ART Review by Suresh Krishnan on 17-May-2010 raises a point
  that deserves a response:

    The draft also fixes the ABNF for IPv4 addresses i.e. the
    rule but is silent about why it is doing so.
    I think I understand why it is being fixed but I would like
    the authors to clarify.
2010-05-19
05 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2010-05-19
05 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ralph Droms
2010-05-19
05 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2010-05-19
05 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Stewart Bryant
2010-05-18
05 David Harrington [Ballot comment]
Should RFC3261 be corrected by Errata, as well?
2010-05-18
05 David Harrington [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by David Harrington
2010-05-18
05 Peter Saint-Andre
[Ballot comment]
This I-D says:

  Accordingly, this document updates RFC3261 as follows:  the
    and  production rules MUST be deleted from
  RFC3261 …
[Ballot comment]
This I-D says:

  Accordingly, this document updates RFC3261 as follows:  the
    and  production rules MUST be deleted from
  RFC3261 and MUST be replaced with the production rules of the same
  name in RFC3986 (and reproduced above.)  These changes, when made to
  RFC3261, will make , , and  production rules
  obsolete.  Thus this document also mandates that the ,
  , and  production rules MUST be deleted from the ABNF
  of RFC3261.

What does it mean that certain production rules MUST be deleted from RFC3261? Isn't that RFC immutable once published? I think it would be clearer to say that those production rules MUST be deleted from any specification that obsoletes RFC3261, and that this specification updates RFC3261 accordingly.
2010-05-18
05 Peter Saint-Andre [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Peter Saint-Andre
2010-05-17
05 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk
2010-05-10
05 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] Position for Alexey Melnikov has been changed to Yes from Discuss by Alexey Melnikov
2010-05-10
05 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot comment]
Note to myself and Peter: The problem of matching of different textual forms of IPv6 addresses might affect other URI schemes.
2010-05-10
05 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot discuss]
2010-05-08
05 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot comment]
The problem might affect other URI schemes.
2010-05-08
05 Alexey Melnikov
[Ballot discuss]
This is a fine document and I will be voting Yes once the following issue is discussed.

I would like to discuss more …
[Ballot discuss]
This is a fine document and I will be voting Yes once the following issue is discussed.

I would like to discuss more generic implications of the following change in Section 3.2:

  OLD:

  o  For two URIs to be equal, the user, password, host, and port
      components must match.

  NEW:

  o  For two URIs to be equal, the user, password, host, and port
      components must match.  If the host component contains a textual
      representation of IP addresses, then the representation of those
      IP addresses may vary.  If so, the host components are considered
      to match if the different textual representations yield the same
      binary IP address.

So effectively you are replacing binary comparison for the host part with some additional rules to deal with multiple semantically equivalent representations. So this begs the question: what about non-IP hostnames, e.g. US-ASCII hostnames differing in case?
2010-05-08
05 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Alexey Melnikov
2010-05-05
05 Robert Sparks Placed on agenda for telechat - 2010-05-20 by Robert Sparks
2010-05-05
05 Robert Sparks State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Robert Sparks
2010-05-05
05 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Robert Sparks
2010-05-05
05 Robert Sparks Ballot has been issued by Robert Sparks
2010-05-05
05 Robert Sparks Created "Approve" ballot
2010-05-03
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-sip-ipv6-abnf-fix-05.txt
2010-03-19
05 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2010-03-15
05 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Glen Zorn.
2010-03-08
05 Amanda Baber IANA comments:

As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand this
document to have NO IANA Actions.
2010-03-06
05 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Glen Zorn
2010-03-06
05 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Glen Zorn
2010-03-05
05 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2010-03-05
05 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2010-03-05
05 Robert Sparks State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Robert Sparks
2010-03-05
05 Robert Sparks Last Call was requested by Robert Sparks
2010-03-05
05 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2010-03-05
05 (System) Last call text was added
2010-03-05
05 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2010-03-05
05 Robert Sparks Note field has been cleared by Robert Sparks
2010-03-05
05 Robert Sparks Intended Status has been changed to Proposed Standard from None
2010-01-29
05 Robert Sparks This document points out a conflict with the ABNF for generic IRIs (RFC3986). That issue is being taken to the public-iri list.
2010-01-29
05 Robert Sparks State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Robert Sparks
2010-01-29
05 Robert Sparks State Changes to Publication Requested from AD is watching by Robert Sparks
2010-01-29
05 Robert Sparks Draft Added by Robert Sparks in state AD is watching
2010-01-28
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-sip-ipv6-abnf-fix-04.txt
2009-12-05
05 (System) Document has expired
2008-11-25
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-sip-ipv6-abnf-fix-03.txt
2008-05-06
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-sip-ipv6-abnf-fix-02.txt
2008-05-05
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-sip-ipv6-abnf-fix-01.txt
2008-02-15
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-sip-ipv6-abnf-fix-00.txt