Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-sip-ipv6-abnf-fix (Essential correction for IPv6 ABNF and URI comparison in RFC3261) to Proposed Standard

Attending to pending email ... sorry for the delayed response.

On 03/05/2010 06:17 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> I see this is very close to done.
> I'm sorry to only be looking at it now.
> While I don't see a problem with what is in this,
> I do see a logical omission:
>
> This calls out that comparison of the binary forms of the ip address,
> and this fixes a problem with ipv4 as well as ipv6.
>
> A similar problem exists for the port number:
> are <sip:foo@bar:1234> and <sip:foo@bar:01234> the same???
>
> ISTM that binary comparison should also be used for port numbers.
>
> But is it worth pulling this back to fix that???

Paul: <sip:foo@bar:01234> could also be interpreted as the digits
comprising the port "1234" to be in base 8 (leading 0 signifies
an octal base.)

Writing leading zeroes for IPv4 address is not prevalent; by the
same token, representing ports in octal base is not prevalent either.
So I am inclined to let sleeping dogs lie.

However, if the sponsoring AD or anyone monitoring this list feels
strongly, I don't mind adding a sentence or two to this effect in
the draft.

Thanks,

- vijay
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is essentially closed and only used for finishing old business.
Use [email protected] for questions on how to develop a SIP implementation.
Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip.
Use [email protected] for issues related to maintenance of the core SIP specifications.