Subject: [sipcore] First draft of draft-ietf-sipcore-dns-dual-stack-03

From: [email-masked] (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 22:07:11 -0500

I've made a first draft of draft-ietf-sipcore-dns-dual-stack-03.  This
message is to invite people to look at it.  I think that it addresses
all the substantial issues that are outstanding and all that I've
discovered, but I've not compared the new text with the mailing list
messages to check that I've covered everything.

This draft is based on the idea that it does not specify Happy Eyeballs
procedures for SIP, but it cleans up a number of matters in RFC 3263 so
that specifying Happy Eyeballs can be done clearly.

These URLs can be used to retrieve the XML and text versions:
http://svn.resiprocate.org/rep/ietf-drafts/worley/draft-ietf-sipcore-dns-dual-stack-03.xml
http://svn.resiprocate.org/rep/ietf-drafts/worley/draft-ietf-sipcore-dns-dual-stack-03.txt

A summary of the changes is given in section 9.1:

   9.1.  Changes from draft-ietf-sipcore-dns-dual-stack-02 to draft-ietf-
         sipcore-dns-dual-stack-03

   Updated wording, punctuation, and capitalization in various places.

   Clarified that this draft does not document Happy Eyeballs for SIP,
   but is preparatory for it.

   Attempted to use "update" for text that is definitively a change to
   the preexisting text and "clarify" for text that is a more clear
   statement of the (presumed) intention of the preexisting text.

   Removed normative words from section 1, the introduction.

   Introduced definition of "address records" (taken from RFC 2782, SRV
   records) to allow the definition to expand to include any new address
   families automatically.

   Relocated the text requiring a client to ignore addresses that it
   discovers in address families it does not support from section 4.2
   (which describes why the situation would arise) to section 4.1 (which
   describes how clients look up RRs).

   Clarified the interaction with RFC 6157 (source and destination
   address selection in IPv6) to specify what must have been intended:
   The major sort of the destinations is the ordering determined by
   priority/weight in the SRV records; the addresses derived from a
   single SRV record's target are minorly sorted based on RFC 6157.

   Removed editor's name from the acknowledgments list.

Dale