draft-ietf-sip-ipv6-abnf-fix-03.txt   draft-ietf-sip-ipv6-abnf-fix-04.txt 
SIP WG V. Gurbani, Ed. SIP WG V. Gurbani, Ed.
Internet-Draft Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent Internet-Draft Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
Updates: 3261 (if approved) B. Carpenter, Ed. Updates: 3261 (if approved) B. Carpenter, Ed.
Intended status: Standards Track Univ. of Auckland Intended status: Standards Track Univ. of Auckland
Expires: May 29, 2009 B. Tate, Ed. Expires: August 1, 2010 B. Tate, Ed.
BroadSoft BroadSoft
November 25, 2008 January 28, 2010
Essential correction for IPv6 ABNF and URI comparison in RFC3261 Essential correction for IPv6 ABNF and URI comparison in RFC3261
draft-ietf-sip-ipv6-abnf-fix-03 draft-ietf-sip-ipv6-abnf-fix-04
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.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
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 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts. Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 29, 2009. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 1, 2010.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Abstract
This memo corrects the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) production This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
rule associated with generating IPv6 literals in RFC3261. It also Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
clarifies the rule for Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) comparison (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
when the URIs contain textual representation of IP addresses. 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 Table of Contents
1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Problem statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Problem statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Extra colon in IPv4-mapped IPv6 address . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Extra colon in IPv4-mapped IPv6 address . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Comparing URIs with textual representation of IP 2.2. Comparing URIs with textual representation of IP
addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Resolution for extra colon in IPv4-mapped IPv6 address . . 4 3.1. Resolution for extra colon in IPv4-mapped IPv6 address . . 4
3.2. Clarification for comparison of URIs with textual 3.2. Clarification for comparison of URIs with textual
representation of IP addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 representation of IP addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Terminology 1. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [2]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [2].
2. Problem statement 2. Problem statement
2.1. Extra colon in IPv4-mapped IPv6 address 2.1. Extra colon in IPv4-mapped IPv6 address
skipping to change at page 4, line 19 skipping to change at page 4, line 19
Does the above rule then imply that the following URIs are equal: 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@[::ffff:192.0.2.128] = sip:bob@[::ffff:c000:280]?
sip:bob@[2001:db8::9:1] = sip:bob@[2001:db8::9:01]? 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@ sip:bob@[0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:129.144.52.38] = sip:bob@
[::FFFF:129.144.52.38]? [::FFFF:129.144.52.38]?
In all of the above examples, the textual representation of the IPv6 In all of the above examples, the textual representation of the IPv6
address is different, but these addresses are binary equivalent. address is different, but these addresses are binary equivalent
Section 19.1.4 of RFC3261 does not provide any rule for URIs (implementers are also urged to consult [7] for recommendations on
containing different textual representations of IPv6 addresses that IPv6 address text representations.) Section 19.1.4 of RFC3261 does
all correspond to the same binary equivalent. 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 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 192.0.2.128 = 192.00.02.128? However, IPv6, with its compressed
notation and the need to represent hybrid addresses (like IPv4- notation and the need to represent hybrid addresses (like IPv4-
mapped IPv6 addresses) makes the representation issue more acute. mapped IPv6 addresses) makes the representation issue more acute.
The resolution discussed in Section 3.2 applies to textual The resolution discussed in Section 3.2 applies to textual
representations of both IPv6 and IPv4 addresses. representations of both IPv6 and IPv4 addresses.
3. Resolution 3. Resolution
skipping to change at page 5, line 24 skipping to change at page 5, line 24
h16 = 1*4HEXDIG h16 = 1*4HEXDIG
ls32 = ( h16 ":" h16 ) / IPv4address ls32 = ( h16 ":" h16 ) / IPv4address
IPv4address = dec-octet "." dec-octet "." dec-octet "." dec-octet IPv4address = dec-octet "." dec-octet "." dec-octet "." dec-octet
dec-octet = DIGIT ; 0-9 dec-octet = DIGIT ; 0-9
/ %x31-39 DIGIT ; 10-99 / %x31-39 DIGIT ; 10-99
/ "1" 2DIGIT ; 100-199 / "1" 2DIGIT ; 100-199
/ "2" %x30-34 DIGIT ; 200-249 / "2" %x30-34 DIGIT ; 200-249
/ "25" %x30-35 ; 250-255 / "25" %x30-35 ; 250-255
Accordingly, following the SIP essential corrections process [7], Accordingly, this memo updates RFC3261 as follows: the <IPv6address>
this memo RECOMMENDS that the <IPv6address> and <IPv4address> and <IPv4address> production rules MUST be deleted from RFC3261 and
production rules be deleted from RFC3261 and replaced with the MUST be replaced with the production rules of the same name in
production rules of the same name in RFC3986 (and reproduced above.) RFC3986 (and reproduced above.) These changes, when made to RFC3261,
These changes, when made to RFC3261, will make <hexpart>, <hexseq>, will make <hexpart>, <hexseq>, and <hex4> production rules obsolete.
and <hex4> production rules obsolete. Thus this memo RECOMMENDS that Thus this memo also mandates that the <hexpart>, <hexseq>, and <hex4>
the <hexpart>, <hexseq>, and <hex4> production rules be deleted from production rules MUST be deleted from the ABNF of RFC3261.
the ABNF of RFC3261.
3.2. Clarification for comparison of URIs with textual representation 3.2. Clarification for comparison of URIs with textual representation
of IP addresses of IP addresses
The resolution to this ambiguity is a simple clarification The resolution to this ambiguity is a simple clarification
acknowledging that the textual representation of an IP addresses acknowledging that the textual representation of an IP addresses
varies, but it is the binary equivalence of the IP address that must varies, but it is the binary equivalence of the IP address that must
be taken into consideration when comparing two URIs that contain be taken into consideration when comparing two URIs that contain
varying textual representations of an IP address. varying textual representations of an IP address.
Accordingly, following the SIP essential corrections process [7], Accordingly, the existing rule from the bulleted list in Section
this memo RECOMMENDS that an existing rule from the bulleted list in 19.1.4 of RFC3216 MUST be modified as follows:
Section 19.1.4 of RFC3216 be modified as follows:
OLD: OLD:
o For two URIs to be equal, the user, password, host, and port o For two URIs to be equal, the user, password, host, and port
components must match. components must match.
NEW: NEW:
o For two URIs to be equal, the user, password, host, and port o For two URIs to be equal, the user, password, host, and port
components must match. If the host component contains a textual components must match. If the host component contains a textual
representation of IP addresses, then the representation of those representation of IP addresses, then the representation of those
IP addresses may vary. If so, the host components are considered IP addresses may vary. If so, the host components are considered
to match if the different textual representations yield the same to match if the different textual representations yield the same
binary IP address. binary IP address.
In addition, this memo RECOMMENDS that the text in the following In addition, the text in the following paragraph MUST be added to the
paragraph be added to the existing list of examples in Section 19.1.4 existing list of examples in Section 19.1.4 of RFC3261 in order to
of RFC3261 in order to demonstrate the intent of the modified rule: demonstrate the intent of the modified rule:
The following URIs are equivalent because the underlying binary The following URIs are equivalent because the underlying binary
representation of the IP addresses are the same although their representation of the IP addresses are the same although their
textual representations vary: textual representations vary:
sip:bob@[::ffff:192.0.2.128] sip:bob@[::ffff:192.0.2.128]
sip:bob@[::ffff:c000:280] sip:bob@[::ffff:c000:280]
sip:bob@[2001:db8::9:1] sip:bob@[2001:db8::9:1]
sip:bob@[2001:db8::9:01] sip:bob@[2001:db8::9:01]
skipping to change at page 7, line 35 skipping to change at page 7, line 35
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008. Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.
7.2. Informative References 7.2. Informative References
[5] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing [5] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006. Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.
[6] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing [6] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 2373, July 1998. Architecture", RFC 2373, July 1998.
[7] Drage, K., "A Process for Handling Essential Corrections to the [7] Kawamura, S. and M. Kawashima, "A Recommendation for IPv6
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", Address Text Representation",
draft-drage-sip-essential-correction-03 (work in progress), draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation-04 (work in progress),
July 2008. January 2010.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Vijay K. Gurbani (editor) Vijay K. Gurbani (editor)
Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane 1960 Lucent Lane
Room 9C-533 Room 9C-533
Naperville, IL 60566 Naperville, IL 60563
USA USA
Phone: +1 630 224-0216 Phone: +1 630 224-0216
Email: vkg@alcatel-lucent.com Email: vkg@bell-labs.com
Brian E. Carpenter (editor) Brian E. Carpenter (editor)
Department of Computer Science Department of Computer Science
University of Auckland University of Auckland
PB 92019 PB 92019
Auckland, 1142 Auckland, 1142
New Zealand New Zealand
Email: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com Email: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com
Brett Tate (editor) Brett Tate (editor)
BroadSoft BroadSoft
Email: brett@broadsoft.com Email: brett@broadsoft.com
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).
 End of changes. 16 change blocks. 
40 lines changed or deleted 48 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.37c. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/