Re: 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