Subject: [sipcore] Changes to draft-ietf-sipcore-dns-dual-stack

From: [email-masked] (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2016 21:19:13 -0400

I saw that in the meeting questions arose about what changes this draft
makes to 3263.

The major point of the draft is to fix/clarify the two points in 3263
where "the client performs an A or AAAA record lookup" of a target
domain name.  In order to get good behavior in dual-stack environments,
it is necessary that both A and AAAA lookups be done on target names (if
the client supports both address families).  (See section 3.1 of the
draft for the details.)  Personally, I'd argue that the corrected
meaning is the only *rational* interpretation of what 3263 must have
meant ... but other people have read the text with the other meaning,
and "Once you're arguing whether or not the text is unclear, you've
proven that the text is unclear."

The second point is to make sure that the interaction of 3262 and the
IPv6 source/destination selection algorithm (RFC 6724) is made clear.
In this case, I think everyone has always agreed what the correct answer
is, but the situation is just treacherous enough that we want to explain
the tricky part in detail.  This is described in section 5 of -04.
(Note that for the -05 I've proposed a substantial change in the wording
of this section and incorporated a detailed example provided by Adam.)

Also, there is the question of the difference between -04 version and
the -02 version (the one that was current when I took over, and in
reality, the last widely circulated version).

My opinion is that there are no *technical* changes but there are a lot
of changes of wording in order to make it clearer.  The differences are
described in prose in section 9, and you can see the diffs between the
two versions at
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-sipcore-dns-dual-stack-02&url2=draft-ietf-sipcore-dns-dual-stack-04

There are a number of outstanding comments and changes that will be
incorporated into the -05 version (assuming the WG agrees).  One of them
is the update of section 5 I mentioned above.  Another are the commends
that Jean Mahoney made on the 6th.

Dale

---

From: "Olle E. Johansson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 09:25:33 +0200

> On 09 Apr 2016, at 03:19, Dale R. Worley <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> proven that the text is unclear.”
As this text is copied to other documents we need to make sure that
we are clear on this, because it will lead to other updates. Section 6.2 of
RFC 4975 - MSRP - has a similar mistake which will make Happy 
Eyeballs hard for MSRP - RFC 4976 section 8 has the very same issue.
I am pretty sure we can find the same problem in other places too.

/O
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore