RE: "*" and "#" signs in the userinfo of SIP URI

I don't think we agree unescaped * and # is wanted.  It
screws up a lot of
other "stuff" for something that looks nice if a
human reads it.

I really want to get this done.  By bringing this issue up
at this time (a
year after it was proposed), you are asking that we go at
least one more
cycle of delay at the IESG to approve this for publication. 
I can put in
another version, wait for the hold to be lifted, and then
see if we have
consensus before asking the IESG to act.  If we don't have
consensus to
leave the text as is, that is what we have to do.

I think the text is okay as written, and I don't want to see
this document
propose to change escaping rules for sip URIs.

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexeitsev, D [mailto.Alexeit
sevt-com.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 11:04 AM
> To: iptelietf.org
> Subject: AW: [Iptel] "*" and "#"
signs in the userinfo of SIP URI
> 
> Hello altogether
> 
> Can the outcome of the discussion be summarised as the
encoding of the
> "*" and "#":
> 
> - Using "E" and "F" is not
recommended.
> - Using escaped "*" and "#" is
possible according to the current SIP URI
> ABNF syntax but is not wanted
> - Using unescaped "*" and "#" is
currently against the syntax but it is
> the wanted solution
> 
> What would be then the next steps based on this
results?
> 
> Greetings,
> Denis Alexeitsev
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Iptel mailing list
> Iptelietf.org
> https://
www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel


_______________________________________________
Iptel mailing list
Iptelietf.org
https://
www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel

Brian Rosen writes:

 > I don't think we agree unescaped * and # is wanted. 
It screws up a lot of
 > other "stuff" for something that looks nice
if a human reads it.

no-one has ever explained what is screws up.

 > I think the text is okay as written, and I don't want
to see this document
 > propose to change escaping rules for sip URIs.

and i don't want to see any document that proposed YET
ANOTHER way to
carry * and # in sip uri.

there must be an end to adding duplicated features to sip.

-- juha

_______________________________________________
Iptel mailing list
Iptelietf.org
https://
www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel

I agree with Brian.

The proposal would require a revision to the definition of
SIP-URI that 
would make it incompatible with RFC 2396. IMO that is a bad
thing to do 
for the marginal benefit here. And if attempted it would no
doubt take a 
long time.

	Paul

Brian Rosen wrote:
> I don't think we agree unescaped * and # is wanted.  It
screws up a lot of
> other "stuff" for something that looks nice
if a human reads it.
> 
> I really want to get this done.  By bringing this issue
up at this time (a
> year after it was proposed), you are asking that we go
at least one more
> cycle of delay at the IESG to approve this for
publication.  I can put in
> another version, wait for the hold to be lifted, and
then see if we have
> consensus before asking the IESG to act.  If we don't
have consensus to
> leave the text as is, that is what we have to do.
> 
> I think the text is okay as written, and I don't want
to see this document
> propose to change escaping rules for sip URIs.
> 
> Brian
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alexeitsev, D [mailto.Alexeit
sevt-com.net]
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 11:04 AM
>> To: iptelietf.org
>> Subject: AW: [Iptel] "*" and
"#" signs in the userinfo of SIP URI
>>
>> Hello altogether
>>
>> Can the outcome of the discussion be summarised as
the encoding of the
>> "*" and "#":
>>
>> - Using "E" and "F" is not
recommended.
>> - Using escaped "*" and "#" is
possible according to the current SIP URI
>> ABNF syntax but is not wanted
>> - Using unescaped "*" and "#"
is currently against the syntax but it is
>> the wanted solution
>>
>> What would be then the next steps based on this
results?
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Denis Alexeitsev
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Iptel mailing list
>> Iptelietf.org
>> https://
www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Iptel mailing list
> Iptelietf.org
> https://
www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel
> 

_______________________________________________
Iptel mailing list
Iptelietf.org
https://
www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel

Paul Kyzivat writes:

 > The proposal would require a revision to the
definition of SIP-URI that 
 > would make it incompatible with RFC 2396. 

and so what?  compatibility cannot be a religious issue if
there are no
technical issues and no-one has not pointed out any.

as i have told, xmpp uris (rfc 3920) allow # in the part as
we call
userpart.  xmpp rfc says

   An entity is anything that can be considered a network
endpoint
   (i.e., an ID on the network) and that can communicate
using XMPP.
   All such entities are uniquely addressable in a form that
is
   consistent with RFC 2396 [URI].

but still it isn't and no ietf protocol police has had no
trouble with
that, because the rfc has been published.

 > IMO that is a bad thing to do 
 > for the marginal benefit here. And if attempted it
would no doubt take a 
 > long time.

a much worse thing would be to define yet another sip
feature.

-- juha

_______________________________________________
Iptel mailing list
Iptelietf.org
https://
www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel

Hi Brian. folks,
  Amen to that.
This document is the missing piece. It's LONG overdue.

* and # can be escaped when carried in a SIP URI; that works
now and  
its legal.
Converting tel URI parameters to be carried in legal SIP
URIs is no  
different.

IMHO No change is needed to this document - if some code
doesn't do  
escaping
rules properly then it may work, it may not, but that has
nothing to  
do with
this document.
I seem to recall a certain SIP phone that didn't enclose
display  
names in
quotes even if they have embedded spaces. That caused fun,
but not with
all systems. Do you really want to force everyone to re-do
their  
regression
testing to fit some implementations?

If you want to re-address valid characters in SIP URIs, then
go do it in
SIPPING/SIP. Once that's done, then there will be a stable
base on which
to build. Providing ad-hoc "quick hacks" to fit an
immediate preference
has not proved successful in the past. The law of unintended
 
consequences
still applies (last time I checked, anyway .

Once a considered change to SIP escaping rules has been
standardised  
then
a whole bunch of RFCs could then be re-considered - this is
NOT the  
only one.

However, until that point, please let's not delay this even
more.
I for one want this yesterday.

all the best,
   Lawrence

On 6 Mar 2007, at 17:19, Brian Rosen wrote:
> I don't think we agree unescaped * and # is wanted.  It
screws up a  
> lot of
> other "stuff" for something that looks nice
if a human reads it.
>
> I really want to get this done.  By bringing this issue
up at this  
> time (a
> year after it was proposed), you are asking that we go
at least one  
> more
> cycle of delay at the IESG to approve this for
publication.  I can  
> put in
> another version, wait for the hold to be lifted, and
then see if we  
> have
> consensus before asking the IESG to act.  If we don't
have  
> consensus to
> leave the text as is, that is what we have to do.
>
> I think the text is okay as written, and I don't want
to see this  
> document
> propose to change escaping rules for sip URIs.
>
> Brian
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alexeitsev, D [mailto.Alexeit
sevt-com.net]
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 11:04 AM
>> To: iptelietf.org
>> Subject: AW: [Iptel] "*" and
"#" signs in the userinfo of SIP URI
>>
>> Hello altogether
>>
>> Can the outcome of the discussion be summarised as
the encoding of  
>> the
>> "*" and "#":
>>
>> - Using "E" and "F" is not
recommended.
>> - Using escaped "*" and "#" is
possible according to the current  
>> SIP URI
>> ABNF syntax but is not wanted
>> - Using unescaped "*" and "#"
is currently against the syntax but  
>> it is
>> the wanted solution
>>
>> What would be then the next steps based on this
results?
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Denis Alexeitsev


_______________________________________________
Iptel mailing list
Iptelietf.org
https://
www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel

>However, until that point, please let's not delay this
even more.
>I for one want this yesterday
 
Amen
Richard

________________________________

Von: lconroy [mailto:lconroyinsensate.co.uk]
Gesendet: Mi 07.03.2007 01:26
An: Brian Rosen
Cc: iptelietf.org
Betreff: Re: [Iptel] "*" and "#" signs
in the userinfo of SIP URI



Hi Brian. folks,
  Amen to that.
This document is the missing piece. It's LONG overdue.

* and # can be escaped when carried in a SIP URI; that works
now and 
its legal.
Converting tel URI parameters to be carried in legal SIP
URIs is no 
different.

IMHO No change is needed to this document - if some code
doesn't do 
escaping
rules properly then it may work, it may not, but that has
nothing to 
do with
this document.
I seem to recall a certain SIP phone that didn't enclose
display 
names in
quotes even if they have embedded spaces. That caused fun,
but not with
all systems. Do you really want to force everyone to re-do
their 
regression
testing to fit some implementations?

If you want to re-address valid characters in SIP URIs, then
go do it in
SIPPING/SIP. Once that's done, then there will be a stable
base on which
to build. Providing ad-hoc "quick hacks" to fit an
immediate preference
has not proved successful in the past. The law of unintended

consequences
still applies (last time I checked, anyway .

Once a considered change to SIP escaping rules has been
standardised 
then
a whole bunch of RFCs could then be re-considered - this is
NOT the 
only one.

However, until that point, please let's not delay this even
more.
I for one want this yesterday.

all the best,
   Lawrence

On 6 Mar 2007, at 17:19, Brian Rosen wrote:
> I don't think we agree unescaped * and # is wanted.  It
screws up a 
> lot of
> other "stuff" for something that looks nice
if a human reads it.
>
> I really want to get this done.  By bringing this issue
up at this 
> time (a
> year after it was proposed), you are asking that we go
at least one 
> more
> cycle of delay at the IESG to approve this for
publication.  I can 
> put in
> another version, wait for the hold to be lifted, and
then see if we 
> have
> consensus before asking the IESG to act.  If we don't
have 
> consensus to
> leave the text as is, that is what we have to do.
>
> I think the text is okay as written, and I don't want
to see this 
> document
> propose to change escaping rules for sip URIs.
>
> Brian
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alexeitsev, D [mailto.Alexeit
sevt-com.net]
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 11:04 AM
>> To: iptelietf.org
>> Subject: AW: [Iptel] "*" and
"#" signs in the userinfo of SIP URI
>>
>> Hello altogether
>>
>> Can the outcome of the discussion be summarised as
the encoding of 
>> the
>> "*" and "#":
>>
>> - Using "E" and "F" is not
recommended.
>> - Using escaped "*" and "#" is
possible according to the current 
>> SIP URI
>> ABNF syntax but is not wanted
>> - Using unescaped "*" and "#"
is currently against the syntax but 
>> it is
>> the wanted solution
>>
>> What would be then the next steps based on this
results?
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Denis Alexeitsev


_______________________________________________
Iptel mailing list
Iptelietf.org
https://
www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel



_______________________________________________
Iptel mailing list
Iptelietf.org
https://
www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel

You do realize that you can do exactly the same thing with
RFC 3966 and the phone-context, by defining a
phone-context=mydiaplan.example.net, right?

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: lconroy [mailto:lconroyinsensate.co.uk] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 16:26
> To: Brian Rosen
> Cc: iptelietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Iptel] "*" and "#"
signs in the userinfo of SIP URI
> 
> Hi Brian. folks,
>   Amen to that.
> This document is the missing piece. It's LONG overdue.
> 
> * and # can be escaped when carried in a SIP URI; that
works 
> now and its legal.
> Converting tel URI parameters to be carried in legal
SIP URIs 
> is no different.
> 
> IMHO No change is needed to this document - if some
code 
> doesn't do escaping rules properly then it may work, it
may 
> not, but that has nothing to do with this document.
> I seem to recall a certain SIP phone that didn't
enclose 
> display names in quotes even if they have embedded
spaces. 
> That caused fun, but not with all systems. Do you
really want 
> to force everyone to re-do their regression testing to
fit 
> some implementations?
> 
> If you want to re-address valid characters in SIP URIs,
then 
> go do it in SIPPING/SIP. Once that's done, then there
will be 
> a stable base on which to build. Providing ad-hoc
"quick 
> hacks" to fit an immediate preference has not
proved 
> successful in the past. The law of unintended
consequences 
> still applies (last time I checked, anyway .
> 
> Once a considered change to SIP escaping rules has been

> standardised then a whole bunch of RFCs could then be 
> re-considered - this is NOT the only one.
> 
> However, until that point, please let's not delay this
even more.
> I for one want this yesterday.
> 
> all the best,
>    Lawrence
> 
> On 6 Mar 2007, at 17:19, Brian Rosen wrote:
> > I don't think we agree unescaped * and # is
wanted.  It screws up a 
> > lot of other "stuff" for something that
looks nice if a human reads 
> > it.
> >
> > I really want to get this done.  By bringing this
issue up at this 
> > time (a year after it was proposed), you are
asking that we go at 
> > least one more cycle of delay at the IESG to
approve this for 
> > publication.  I can put in another version, wait
for the hold to be 
> > lifted, and then see if we have consensus before
asking the IESG to 
> > act.  If we don't have consensus to leave the text
as is, 
> that is what 
> > we have to do.
> >
> > I think the text is okay as written, and I don't
want to see this 
> > document propose to change escaping rules for sip
URIs.
> >
> > Brian
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Alexeitsev, D [mailto.Alexeit
sevt-com.net]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 11:04 AM
> >> To: iptelietf.org
> >> Subject: AW: [Iptel] "*" and
"#" signs in the userinfo of SIP URI
> >>
> >> Hello altogether
> >>
> >> Can the outcome of the discussion be
summarised as the encoding of 
> >> the "*" and "#":
> >>
> >> - Using "E" and "F" is not
recommended.
> >> - Using escaped "*" and
"#" is possible according to the 
> current SIP 
> >> URI ABNF syntax but is not wanted
> >> - Using unescaped "*" and
"#" is currently against the 
> syntax but it 
> >> is the wanted solution
> >>
> >> What would be then the next steps based on
this results?
> >>
> >> Greetings,
> >> Denis Alexeitsev
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Iptel mailing list
> Iptelietf.org
> https://
www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel
> 

_______________________________________________
Iptel mailing list
Iptelietf.org
https://
www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel