Re: Question regarding conflicting grammar for IPV6 SIP URI andRFC 3986

"Dale Worley" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.sip
Organization Nortel Networks
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On Thu, 2008-12-18 at 19:09 -0500, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
> The SIP URI is not the only one with this problem - RFC 3860 (im-URI),
> RFC 3859 (pres-URI), RFC 3508 (h323-URI), and who knows what else
> violate that rule.
> 
> Seems to me any "fixing" should be done to RFC 3986, probably as an
> errata.

Let's get a grip on the origin of the problem.

The generic URI grammar was stimulated by HTTP URIs.  They assume that
*if* the URI contains the designation of a host, it will be flagged by
the initial "//" -- and the syntax allows "all the standard syntaxes for
hosts" in that location.  Now if SIP URIs we constructed on that format,
we'd have "sip://[email protected]".  But I don't expect that to change
any time soon.

So let's ask, why are SIP URIs written as they are?  Clearly, it's
because they're based on e-mail addresses, or rather, the "mailto:" URI
scheme:  "mailto:[email protected] --> sip:[email protected]".  Hmmm,
doesn't that mean that mailto: URIs have the same problem?  And, as
Hadriel notes, *all* the URIs based on the mailto: URI?  What have the
"mailto" people done about this?

That doesn't take long to look up:  Page 2 of RFC 2368 says:

     mailtoURL  =  "mailto:" [ to ] [ headers ]
     to         =  #mailbox
     headers    =  "?" header *( "&" header )
     header     =  hname "=" hvalue
     hname      =  *urlc
     hvalue     =  *urlc

   "#mailbox" is as specified in RFC 822 [RFC822]. This means that it
   consists of zero or more comma-separated mail addresses, possibly
   including "phrase" and "comment" components. Note that all URL
   reserved characters in "to" must be encoded: in particular,
   parentheses, commas, and the percent sign ("%"), which commonly occur
   in the "mailbox" syntax.

So if you want an IPv6 address in your mailto: URI, you're going to have
to write the [...] as %5b...%5d.

As far as I can tell, the only reason that this rule does not extend
(uniformly!) to SIP URIs is that RFC 3261 explicitly forbids it.
Perhaps we could allow %-escapes in host-parts as part of the IPv6
upgrades to our software...

Dale


_______________________________________________
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
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.