Alex,
On 11/4/16 12:31 AM, Alex Balashov wrote:
Hi,
As far as I can tell from the RFC 3261 ABNF, it is permitted to put SEMI
and EQUAL in the username of a URI, but it has no semantic validity.
Why do you say this has no semantic validity? The owner of the domain
determines the semantics of
Alex Balashov writes:
> As far as I can tell from the RFC 3261 ABNF, it is permitted to put SEMI
> and EQUAL in the username of a URI, but it has no semantic validity.
> That is to say, this is permitted:
>
>
True, though you probably meant
> but doesn't mean anything. 'myval=abc;u
Hi,
Sorry; I misinterpreted "The ultimate reason" paragraph. However, the same
comments apply.
My understanding is that you can't be certain about how it will be handled
without the use of user-parameter (or local restrictions on the name space)
to know how to decode the user portion of the sip-
Brett,
Thank you for your answer, but it is still rather clear—likely to my
feeble intellect—how to apply this to my question about use of Diversion
to pass state.
On 11/04/2016 07:04 AM, Brett Tate wrote:
As far as I can tell from the RFC 3261 ABNF, it is
permitted to put SEMI and EQUAL in
> As far as I can tell from the RFC 3261 ABNF, it is
> permitted to put SEMI and EQUAL in the username of
> a URI, but it has no semantic validity.
The user-parameter can help. However, be aware that some vendors add
"user=phone" when user portion is absent or otherwise cannot be decoded as
telep
