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

Hadriel Kaplan <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.sip
Message-ID <E6C2E8958BA59A4FB960963D475F7AC314C232BD20@mail>
How about: ignorance is bliss?  :)

Seriously, what does RFC 3986 do??  How does it affect anything for common URI formats not to comply with it? (or really, for *it* not to comply with common URI formats)


-hadriel

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dale
> Worley
> Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 4:10 PM
> To: Dean Willis
> Cc: SIP
> Subject: Re: [Sip] Question regarding conflicting grammar for IPV6 SIP URI
> andRFC 3986
>
> On Wed, 2009-03-04 at 12:03 -0600, Dean Willis wrote:
> > I'm afraid I have to concur with Theo. 3986 is just broken.
>
> Perhaps so, given that the different URI formats have different sets of
> acceptable characters -- why would that be?
>
> But what is the plan for going forward?
>
> 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
_______________________________________________
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.