Subject: Generic URI syntax incompatible with IPv6 addresses in SIP URIs

From: Theo Zourzouvillys <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 14:05:49 +0100

Hi,

sip URI's (along with a bunch of others, such as iax, im, pres, and
xmpp)  allow embedded IPv6 literals in their URIs, but match
path-rootless in RFC 3986, which does not allow '[' and ']' - these
are only allowed in authority.  This means that a generic URI parser
will treat an IPv6 SIP URI as invalid unless it is aware of SIP URIs.

I documented it earlier in the month here:

  http://crazygreek.co.uk/b/2009/03/sip-uri-syntax-is-broken-with-ipv6.html

I'd appreciate feedback on how to best proceed to get this fixed?

Kind regards,

 ~ Theo

---

From: Lisa Dusseault <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 12:31:32 -0700

There is at least one relevant list: [email-masked].  I believe
that's where discussion of updating the base URI specs is moving?  I'm
trying to join myself.

Lisa

On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 6:05 AM, Theo Zourzouvillys
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Apps-Discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>

---

From: Lisa Dusseault <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:57:13 -0700

Well, I'm confused.  "Moving" was a loose term, but I did think I
heard that we should join "public-?ri" (didn't hear very clearly at
the bar bof) and "public-iri" was the match I found.  Since I'm a
newcomer to either list (URI work has been pretty slow while I've been
AD), just let me know which list we should use to discuss updating the
IETF URI RFCs.

Lisa

On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Mark Baker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Lisa Dusseault
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Moving, really?  I hadn't heard anything about that.  I would have
> thought [email-masked] would be the place to take this.
>
> Mark.
>

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 23:05:42 +0200

> AD), just let me know which list we should use to discuss updating the

Well, we've got both

   <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-iri/>

and

   <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/>

As far as I can tell, the discussion is about:

- a potential issue with the IRI spec (normalization)

and

- a potential addition already drafted in RFC3987bis (LEIRIs)

In particular, I haven't seen any bugs reported against RFC3986 in this 
context (except the lack of error handling requirements, which clearly 
is controversial).

Thus, it seems that we are really talking about RFC3987bis, and thus the 
IRI mailing list would be the right place.

BR, Julian