One document matched: draft-ietf-sip-ipv6-abnf-fix-00.txt
SIP WG V. Gurbani, Ed.
Internet-Draft Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
Updates: 3261 (if approved) B. Carpenter, Ed.
Intended status: Standards Track Univ. of Auckland
Expires: August 17, 2008 B. Tate, Ed.
BroadSoft
February 14, 2008
Essential correction for IPv6 ABNF and URI comparison in RFC3261
draft-ietf-sip-ipv6-abnf-fix-00
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 17, 2008.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
Abstract
This memo corrects the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) production
rule associated with generating IPv6 literals in RFC3261. It also
clarifies the rule for Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) comparison
when the URIs contain textual representation of IP addresses.
Gurbani, et al. Expires August 17, 2008 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SIP IPv6 ABNF February 2008
Table of Contents
1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Problem statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Extra colon in IPv4-mapped IPv6 address . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Comparing URIs with textual representation of IP
addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Resolution for extra colon in IPv4-mapped IPv6 address . . 4
3.2. Clarification for comparison of URIs with textual
representation of IP addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 9
Gurbani, et al. Expires August 17, 2008 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SIP IPv6 ABNF February 2008
1. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [2].
2. Problem statement
2.1. Extra colon in IPv4-mapped IPv6 address
The ABNF [4] for generating IPv6 literals in RFC3261 [1] is
incorrect. When generating IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses, the
production rule may actually generate the following construct:
[2001:db8:::192.0.2.1] - Note the extra colon before the IPv4
address.
The correct construct, of course, would only include two colons
before the IPv4 address.
Historically, the ABNF pertaining to IPv6 references in RFC3261
was derived from Appendix B of RFC 2373 [6], which was flawed to
begin with (see also RFC2373 errata at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/cgi-bin/errataSearch.pl?rfc=2373.)
RFC2373 has been subsequently obsoleted by RFC 4291 [5].
The ABNF for IPv6 reference is reproduced from RFC3261 below:
IPv6reference = "[" IPv6address "]"
IPv6address = hexpart [ ":" IPv4address ]
IPv4address = 1*3DIGIT "." 1*3DIGIT "." 1*3DIGIT "." 1*3DIGIT
hexpart = hexseq / hexseq "::" [ hexseq ] / "::" [ hexseq ]
hexseq = hex4 *( ":" hex4)
hex4 = 1*4HEXDIG
Note that the ambiguity occurs in the "IPv6address" production rule
where the "IPv4address" non-terminal is prefixed by ":" token.
Because the "hexpart" production rule is defined such that two of its
alternatives already include the "::" token, this may yield to the
faulty construction of an IPv6-mapped IPv4 address with an extra
colon when expanding those alternatives.
2.2. Comparing URIs with textual representation of IP addresses
In SIP, URIs are compared for a variety of reasons. Registrars
compare URIs when they receive a binding update request, for
instance. Section 19.1.4 of RFC3261 [1] provides the rules for
Gurbani, et al. Expires August 17, 2008 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SIP IPv6 ABNF February 2008
comparing URIs. Among other rules, it states that:
For two URIs to be equal, the user, password, host, and port
components must match.
Does the above rule then imply that the following URIs are equal:
sip:bob@[::ffff:192.0.2.128] = sip:bob@[::ffff:c000:280]?
sip:bob@[2001:db8::9:1] = sip:bob@[2001:db8::9:01]?
sip:bob@[0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:129.144.52.38] = sip:bob@
[::FFFF:129.144.52.38]?
In all of the above examples, the textual representation of the IPv6
address is different, but these addresses are binary equivalent.
Section 19.1.4 of RFC3261 does not provide any rule for URIs
containing different textual representations of IPv6 addresses that
all correspond to the same binary equivalent.
Note that the same ambiguity occurs for IPv4 addresses, i.e., is
192.0.2.128 = 192.00.02.128? However, IPv6, with its compressed
notation and the need to represent hybrid addresses (like IPv4-
mapped IPv6 addresses) makes the representation issue more acute.
The resolution discussed in Section 3.2 applies to textual
representations of both IPv6 and IPv4 addresses.
3. Resolution
3.1. Resolution for extra colon in IPv4-mapped IPv6 address
The resolution to this ambiguity is simply to use the correct ABNF
for the "IPv6address" production rule from Appendix A of RFC3986 [3].
For the sake of completeness, it is reproduced below:
Gurbani, et al. Expires August 17, 2008 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SIP IPv6 ABNF February 2008
IPv6address = 6( h16 ":" ) ls32
/ "::" 5( h16 ":" ) ls32
/ [ h16 ] "::" 4( h16 ":" ) ls32
/ [ *1( h16 ":" ) h16 ] "::" 3( h16 ":" ) ls32
/ [ *2( h16 ":" ) h16 ] "::" 2( h16 ":" ) ls32
/ [ *3( h16 ":" ) h16 ] "::" h16 ":" ls32
/ [ *4( h16 ":" ) h16 ] "::" ls32
/ [ *5( h16 ":" ) h16 ] "::" h16
/ [ *6( h16 ":" ) h16 ] "::"
h16 = 1*4HEXDIG
ls32 = ( h16 ":" h16 ) / IPv4address
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
Accordingly, following the SIP essential corrections process [7],
this memo RECOMMENDS that the "IPv6address" and "IPv4address"
production rules be deleted from RFC3261 and replaced with the
production rules of the same name in RFC3986 (and reproduced above.)
These changes, when made to RFC3261, will make "hexpart", "hexseq",
and "hex4" production rules obsolete. Thus this memo RECOMMENDS that
the "hexpart", "hexseq", and "hex4" production rules be deleted from
the ABNF of RFC3261.
3.2. Clarification for comparison of URIs with textual representation
of IP addresses
The resolution to this ambiguity is a simple clarification
acknowledging that the textual representation of an IP addresses
varies, but it is the binary equivalence of the IP address that must
be taken into consideration when comparing two URIs that contain
varying textual representation of an IP address.
Accordingly, following the SIP essential corrections process [7],
this memo RECOMMENDS that the an existing rule from the bulleted list
in Section 19.1.4 of RFC3216 be modified as follows:
Gurbani, et al. Expires August 17, 2008 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SIP IPv6 ABNF February 2008
OLD:
o For two URIs to be equal, the user, password, host, and port
components must match.
NEW:
o For two URIs to be equal, the user, password, host, and port
components must match. If the host component contains textual
representation of IP addresses, then the representation of those
IP addresses may vary. If so, the host components are considered
to match if the different textual representations yield the same
binary IP address.
In addition, this memo RECOMMENDS that the text in the following
paragraph be added to the existing list of examples in Section 19.1.4
of RFC3261 in order to demonstrate the intent of the modified rule:
The following URIs are equivalent because the underlying binary
representation of the IP addresses are the same although their
textual representations vary:
sip:bob@[::ffff:192.0.2.128]
sip:bob@[::ffff:c000:280]
sip:bob@[2001:db8::9:1]
sip:bob@[2001:db8::9:01]
sip:bob@[0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:129.144.52.38]
sip:bob@[::FFFF:129.144.52.38]
4. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce any new security considerations.
5. IANA Considerations
This document does not include any IANA considerations.
6. Acknowledgments
The correct ABNF for IPv6 was developed by Andrew Main
(draft-main-ipaddr-text-rep) in 2005 and published in RFC3986.
Jeroen van Bemmel, Peter Blatherwick, Gonzalo Camarillo, Paul
Gurbani, et al. Expires August 17, 2008 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft SIP IPv6 ABNF February 2008
Kyzivat, Jonathan Rosenberg, Michael Thomas, and Dale Worley provided
invaluable discussion points on the SIP WG mailing list on the URI
equivalency problem.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[1] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A.,
Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP:
Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002.
[2] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[3] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 3986,
January 2005.
[4] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.
7.2. Informative References
[5] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.
[6] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 2373, July 1998.
[7] Drage, K., "A Process for Handling Essential Corrections to the
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
draft-drage-sip-essential-correction-02 (work in progress),
November 2007.
Gurbani, et al. Expires August 17, 2008 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft SIP IPv6 ABNF February 2008
Authors' Addresses
Vijay K. Gurbani (editor)
Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
2701 Lucent Lane
Room 9F-546
Lisle, IL 60532
USA
Phone: +1 630 224-0216
Email: vkg@alcatel-lucent.com
Brian E. Carpenter (editor)
Department of Computer Science
University of Auckland
PB 92019
Auckland, 1142
New Zealand
Email: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com
Brett Tate (editor)
BroadSoft
Email: brett@broadsoft.com
Gurbani, et al. Expires August 17, 2008 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft SIP IPv6 ABNF February 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Gurbani, et al. Expires August 17, 2008 [Page 9]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 12:36:00 |