[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:  November 1, 2010                                  B. Tate, Ed.
                                                               BroadSoft
                                                          April 30, 2010


    Essential correction for IPv6 ABNF and URI comparison in RFC3261
                    draft-ietf-sip-ipv6-abnf-fix-05

Abstract

   This document 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.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and 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 November 1, 2010.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.




Gurbani, et al.         Expires November 1, 2010                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                SIP IPv6 ABNF                   April 2010


   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the BSD License.


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.  Generating a Canonical IPv6 Textual Representation  . . . . . . 6
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   7.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7





















Gurbani, et al.         Expires November 1, 2010                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                SIP IPv6 ABNF                   April 2010


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 [7], 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 [6].

   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 the ":" 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 November 1, 2010                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                SIP IPv6 ABNF                   April 2010


   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
   (implementers are also urged to consult Section 4 of this document
   for recommendations on IPv6 address text representations.)  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 November 1, 2010                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                SIP IPv6 ABNF                   April 2010


    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, this document updates RFC3261 as follows:  the
   <IPv6address> and <IPv4address> production rules MUST be deleted from
   RFC3261 and MUST be 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 document also mandates that the <hexpart>,
   <hexseq>, and <hex4> production rules MUST 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 representations of an IP address.

   Accordingly, the existing rule from the bulleted list in Section
   19.1.4 of RFC3261 MUST be modified as follows:











Gurbani, et al.         Expires November 1, 2010                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                SIP IPv6 ABNF                   April 2010


   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 a 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, the text in the following paragraph MUST 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.  Generating a Canonical IPv6 Textual Representation

   Implementers SHOULD generate IPv6 text representation as defined in
   [5].


5.  Security Considerations

   This document does not introduce any new security considerations.


6.  IANA Considerations

   This document does not include any IANA considerations.





Gurbani, et al.         Expires November 1, 2010                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                SIP IPv6 ABNF                   April 2010


7.  Acknowledgments

   The ABNF for IPv6 was developed by Roy T. Fielding and Andrew Main
   and published in RFC3986.

   Jeroen van Bemmel, Peter Blatherwick, Gonzalo Camarillo, Paul
   Kyzivat, Jonathan Rosenberg, Michael Thomas, and Dale Worley provided
   invaluable discussion points on the SIP WG mailing list on the URI
   equivalency problem.  Alfred Hoenes urged the use of angle brackets
   (as specified in Section 2.1 of [4]) to denote productions.


8.  References

8.1.  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.

   [5]  Kawamura, S. and M. Kawashima, "A Recommendation for IPv6
        Address Text Representation",
        draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation-07 (work in progress),
        February 2010.

8.2.  Informative References

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

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









Gurbani, et al.         Expires November 1, 2010                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                SIP IPv6 ABNF                   April 2010


Authors' Addresses

   Vijay K. Gurbani (editor)
   Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
   1960 Lucent Lane
   Room 9C-533
   Naperville, IL  60563
   USA

   Phone:  +1 630 224-0216
   Email:  vkg@bell-labs.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 November 1, 2010                [Page 8]


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