Draft:  draft-ietf-sipping-ipv6-torture-tests-01.txt
Reviewer: B, Nataraju [bnataraju@sonusnet.com]
Review Date: 4/2/2007 
Review Deadline: 
Status: WGLC 

Summary: This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in the review. 

Comments: 

1. Lets not allow IPV6 addresses with out [ & ], this is a deviation from RFC 3261 also.

This would definitely lead to interoperability issues later.

Snippet from rfc.3261

IPv6reference  =  "[" IPv6address "]"

Here "[" "]" means mandatory to have for this component

Ref:

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

for instance we can't have IP address without . For an IPv4 addresses

2. Replace all instances of umabiguous with unambiguous

Search for all the instances in the draft.

3. via-received not including delimiters [ & ] would make implementations complex or why don’t we make sure all IPv6 addresses always accompany with delimiters [ & ]. This loop hole will definitely lead to interoperability issues some time later....

        sec 4.5 of the draft ipv6-torture-tests-01.

Even though some implementations accept IPv6 addresses without [ ], that is a deviation from standards, but that should not be the criteria to allow IPv6 without [ ].

4. 

Sec 4.5 param-2 of draft ipv6-torture-tests-01 is not valid with respect to 3261

        hence let us remove this test case

   The OPTIONS request below contains an IPv6 address in the Via

   received parameter without the adorning "[" and "]".  This request is

   valid according to the grammar in RFC3261.

The above statement is a deviation from what is mentioned in 3261.

   Message Details: param-2

     OPTIONS sip:[2001:db8::10] SIP/2.0

     To: sip:user@example.com

     From: sip:user@example.com;tag=81x2

     <allOneLine>

     Via: SIP/2.0/UDP [2001:db8::9:1];received=2001:db8::9:255;

     branch=z9hG4bKas3

     </allOneLine>

     Call-ID: SSG95523997077@hlau_4100

     Max-Forwards: 70

     Contact: "Caller" <sip:caller@[2001:db8::1]>

     CSeq: 921 OPTIONS

     Content-Length: 0



5. 

Ref: 4.6.  SIP request with IPv6 addresses in SDP body

Even here also shall we mandate addresses are with [ & ]

This IPv6 address is definitely not inline with what is been specified in 3261. 

I understand we would not receive IP:PORT in SDP, we can assume what is been mentioned here is valid to accept, but this is a deviation from RFC.3261. if we agree that we are deviating from 3261. Shall we mention the same as a note in the draft?