Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-ietf-sip-ipv6-abnf-fix-05

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 01:46:48 -0400

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-sip-ipv6-abnf-fix-05
Reviewer: Suresh Krishnan
Review Date: 2010/05/17
IESG Telechat date: 2010/05/20

Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard.
I do have one comment that you may like to address.

Minor
=====
* The draft also fixes the ABNF for IPv4 addresses i.e. the 
<IPv4address> rule but is silent about why it is doing so. I think I 
understand why it is being fixed but I would like the authors to clarify.

The old rule read

IPv4address    =  1*3DIGIT "." 1*3DIGIT "." 1*3DIGIT "." 1*3DIGIT

and the new rule reads

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

It would be nice if you can some explanatory text in Section 2. 
Something like

"The <IPv4address> rule in RFC3261 allowed invalid IPv4 addresses to be 
specified and still be compliant to the ABNF. (e.g. An URI such as 
sip:[email-masked]:88 would still be considered valid.) The 
resolution for this error is simply to use the correct ABNF for the 
<IPv4address> production rule from Appendix A of RFC3986 [3]."

Thanks
Suresh

---

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 11:41:20 -0500

On 05/18/2010 12:46 AM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
> reviewer for this draft ...  draft-ietf-sip-ipv6-abnf-fix-05

Suresh: Thank you for the review.  More inline.

> understand why it is being fixed but I would like the authors to clarify.
[...]
> <IPv4address> production rule from Appendix A of RFC3986 [3]."

Instead of putting this in Section 2, which discusses problems with
IPv6 addresses, I will put the above text as an indented text in
S3.1.  Something like the following:

OLD:
    Accordingly, this document updates RFC3261 as follows:  the
    ...
    Thus this document also mandates that the <hexpart>,
    <hexseq>, and <hex4> production rules MUST be deleted from the ABNF
    of RFC3261.

NEW:
    Accordingly, this document updates RFC3261 as follows:  the
    ...
    Thus this document also mandates that the <hexpart>,
    <hexseq>, and <hex4> production rules MUST be deleted from the ABNF
    of RFC3261.

       The use of the <IPv4address> production rule from
       RFC3986 no longer allows syntactically valid --- though
       semantically invalid --- SIP URIs of the form
       "sip:[email-masked]".

Is that okay?

Thanks,

- vijay

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 13:24:36 -0400

Hi Vijay,
   The proposed change looks good. Thanks for taking care of this.

Cheers
Suresh