[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-gurbani-sip-ipv6-abnf-fix) 00 01 02 03 04 05 RFC 5954

SIP WG                                                   V. Gurbani, Ed.
Internet-Draft                         Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
Updates:  3261 (if approved)                           B. Carpenter, Ed.
Intended status:  Standards Track                      Univ. of Auckland
Expires:  August 17, 2008                                   B. Tate, Ed.
                                                               BroadSoft
                                                       February 14, 2008


    Essential correction for IPv6 ABNF and URI comparison in RFC3261
                    draft-ietf-sip-ipv6-abnf-fix-00

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 17, 2008.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

Abstract

   This memo corrects the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) production
   rule associated with generating IPv6 literals in RFC3261.  It also
   clarifies the rule for Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) comparison
   when the URIs contain textual representation of IP addresses.




Gurbani, et al.          Expires August 17, 2008                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                SIP IPv6 ABNF                February 2008


Table of Contents

   1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  Problem statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     2.1.  Extra colon in IPv4-mapped IPv6 address . . . . . . . . . . 3
     2.2.  Comparing URIs with textual representation of IP
           addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   3.  Resolution  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
     3.1.  Resolution for extra colon in IPv4-mapped IPv6 address  . . 4
     3.2.  Clarification for comparison of URIs with textual
           representation of IP addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   6.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements  . . . . . . . . . . 9
































Gurbani, et al.          Expires August 17, 2008                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                SIP IPv6 ABNF                February 2008


1.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [2].


2.  Problem statement

2.1.  Extra colon in IPv4-mapped IPv6 address

   The ABNF [4] for generating IPv6 literals in RFC3261 [1] is
   incorrect.  When generating IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses, the
   production rule may actually generate the following construct:

   [2001:db8:::192.0.2.1] - Note the extra colon before the IPv4
   address.

   The correct construct, of course, would only include two colons
   before the IPv4 address.

      Historically, the ABNF pertaining to IPv6 references in RFC3261
      was derived from Appendix B of RFC 2373 [6], which was flawed to
      begin with (see also RFC2373 errata at
      http://www.rfc-editor.org/cgi-bin/errataSearch.pl?rfc=2373.)
      RFC2373 has been subsequently obsoleted by RFC 4291 [5].

   The ABNF for IPv6 reference is reproduced from RFC3261 below:

     IPv6reference  =  "[" IPv6address "]"
     IPv6address    =  hexpart [ ":" IPv4address ]
     IPv4address    =  1*3DIGIT "." 1*3DIGIT "." 1*3DIGIT "." 1*3DIGIT
     hexpart        =  hexseq / hexseq "::" [ hexseq ] / "::" [ hexseq ]
     hexseq         =  hex4 *( ":" hex4)
     hex4           =  1*4HEXDIG

   Note that the ambiguity occurs in the "IPv6address" production rule
   where the "IPv4address" non-terminal is prefixed by ":" token.
   Because the "hexpart" production rule is defined such that two of its
   alternatives already include the "::" token, this may yield to the
   faulty construction of an IPv6-mapped IPv4 address with an extra
   colon when expanding those alternatives.

2.2.  Comparing URIs with textual representation of IP addresses

   In SIP, URIs are compared for a variety of reasons.  Registrars
   compare URIs when they receive a binding update request, for
   instance.  Section 19.1.4 of RFC3261 [1] provides the rules for



Gurbani, et al.          Expires August 17, 2008                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                SIP IPv6 ABNF                February 2008


   comparing URIs.  Among other rules, it states that:

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

   Does the above rule then imply that the following URIs are equal:

      sip:bob@[::ffff:192.0.2.128] = sip:bob@[::ffff:c000:280]?

      sip:bob@[2001:db8::9:1] = sip:bob@[2001:db8::9:01]?

      sip:bob@[0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:129.144.52.38] = sip:bob@
      [::FFFF:129.144.52.38]?

   In all of the above examples, the textual representation of the IPv6
   address is different, but these addresses are binary equivalent.
   Section 19.1.4 of RFC3261 does not provide any rule for URIs
   containing different textual representations of IPv6 addresses that
   all correspond to the same binary equivalent.

      Note that the same ambiguity occurs for IPv4 addresses, i.e., is
      192.0.2.128 = 192.00.02.128?  However, IPv6, with its compressed
      notation and the need to represent hybrid addresses (like IPv4-
      mapped IPv6 addresses) makes the representation issue more acute.
      The resolution discussed in Section 3.2 applies to textual
      representations of both IPv6 and IPv4 addresses.


3.  Resolution

3.1.  Resolution for extra colon in IPv4-mapped IPv6 address

   The resolution to this ambiguity is simply to use the correct ABNF
   for the "IPv6address" production rule from Appendix A of RFC3986 [3].
   For the sake of completeness, it is reproduced below:
















Gurbani, et al.          Expires August 17, 2008                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                SIP IPv6 ABNF                February 2008


    IPv6address   =                             6( h16 ":" ) ls32
                   /                       "::" 5( h16 ":" ) ls32
                   / [               h16 ] "::" 4( h16 ":" ) ls32
                   / [ *1( h16 ":" ) h16 ] "::" 3( h16 ":" ) ls32
                   / [ *2( h16 ":" ) h16 ] "::" 2( h16 ":" ) ls32
                   / [ *3( h16 ":" ) h16 ] "::"    h16 ":"   ls32
                   / [ *4( h16 ":" ) h16 ] "::"              ls32
                   / [ *5( h16 ":" ) h16 ] "::"              h16
                   / [ *6( h16 ":" ) h16 ] "::"

     h16           = 1*4HEXDIG
     ls32          = ( h16 ":" h16 ) / IPv4address
     IPv4address   = dec-octet "." dec-octet "." dec-octet "." dec-octet
     dec-octet     = DIGIT                 ; 0-9
                   / %x31-39 DIGIT         ; 10-99
                   / "1" 2DIGIT            ; 100-199
                   / "2" %x30-34 DIGIT     ; 200-249
                   / "25" %x30-35          ; 250-255


   Accordingly, following the SIP essential corrections process [7],
   this memo RECOMMENDS that the "IPv6address" and "IPv4address"
   production rules be deleted from RFC3261 and replaced with the
   production rules of the same name in RFC3986 (and reproduced above.)
   These changes, when made to RFC3261, will make "hexpart", "hexseq",
   and "hex4" production rules obsolete.  Thus this memo RECOMMENDS that
   the "hexpart", "hexseq", and "hex4" production rules be deleted from
   the ABNF of RFC3261.

3.2.  Clarification for comparison of URIs with textual representation
      of IP addresses

   The resolution to this ambiguity is a simple clarification
   acknowledging that the textual representation of an IP addresses
   varies, but it is the binary equivalence of the IP address that must
   be taken into consideration when comparing two URIs that contain
   varying textual representation of an IP address.

   Accordingly, following the SIP essential corrections process [7],
   this memo RECOMMENDS that the an existing rule from the bulleted list
   in Section 19.1.4 of RFC3216 be modified as follows:










Gurbani, et al.          Expires August 17, 2008                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                SIP IPv6 ABNF                February 2008


   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 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.

   In addition, this memo RECOMMENDS that the text in the following
   paragraph be added to the existing list of examples in Section 19.1.4
   of RFC3261 in order to demonstrate the intent of the modified rule:

   The following URIs are equivalent because the underlying binary
   representation of the IP addresses are the same although their
   textual representations vary:

      sip:bob@[::ffff:192.0.2.128]
      sip:bob@[::ffff:c000:280]

      sip:bob@[2001:db8::9:1]
      sip:bob@[2001:db8::9:01]

      sip:bob@[0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:129.144.52.38]
      sip:bob@[::FFFF:129.144.52.38]


4.  Security Considerations

   This document does not introduce any new security considerations.


5.  IANA Considerations

   This document does not include any IANA considerations.


6.  Acknowledgments

   The correct ABNF for IPv6 was developed by Andrew Main
   (draft-main-ipaddr-text-rep) in 2005 and published in RFC3986.

   Jeroen van Bemmel, Peter Blatherwick, Gonzalo Camarillo, Paul



Gurbani, et al.          Expires August 17, 2008                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                SIP IPv6 ABNF                February 2008


   Kyzivat, Jonathan Rosenberg, Michael Thomas, and Dale Worley provided
   invaluable discussion points on the SIP WG mailing list on the URI
   equivalency problem.


7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [1]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A.,
        Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP:
        Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002.

   [2]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
        Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [3]  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
        Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 3986,
        January 2005.

   [4]  Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
        Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.

7.2.  Informative References

   [5]  Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
        Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.

   [6]  Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
        Architecture", RFC 2373, July 1998.

   [7]  Drage, K., "A Process for Handling Essential Corrections to the
        Session Initiation  Protocol (SIP)",
        draft-drage-sip-essential-correction-02 (work in progress),
        November 2007.
















Gurbani, et al.          Expires August 17, 2008                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                SIP IPv6 ABNF                February 2008


Authors' Addresses

   Vijay K. Gurbani (editor)
   Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
   2701 Lucent Lane
   Room 9F-546
   Lisle, IL  60532
   USA

   Phone:  +1 630 224-0216
   Email:  vkg@alcatel-lucent.com


   Brian E. Carpenter (editor)
   Department of Computer Science
   University of Auckland
   PB 92019
   Auckland,   1142
   New Zealand

   Email:  brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com


   Brett Tate (editor)
   BroadSoft

   Email:  brett@broadsoft.com
























Gurbani, et al.          Expires August 17, 2008                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                SIP IPv6 ABNF                February 2008


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).





Gurbani, et al.          Expires August 17, 2008                [Page 9]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/