From: Peter Krebs [pkr...@gmail.com]
Is my interpretation of the ABNF correct in this case and a SIP parser must
accept a header without a value while still checking for the =
You are correct.
This is yet another situation where the IETF has taken advantage of what it has
discovered: When
From: Iñaki Baz Castillo [i...@aliax.net]
I just mean human users/developers making usage of SIP URI headers.
I've never seen a SIP device making real usage of them, never.
You haven't looked a phones doing attended transfer, where they send a
REFER for INVITE with Replaces, that is, a REFER
2011/8/4 Paul Kyzivat pkyzi...@alum.mit.edu:
Indeed strange and a bit ugly but who is using URI headers? :)
Go read about History-Info (draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis).
Hi Paul. It's not the first time that somebody justifies me the usage
of a feature/spec given the fact that some other
Good morning,
I have a question regarding the ABNF of the header component of a
SIP/SIP-URI as defined in RFC 3261, page 223. It seems from the rule that it
is possible for a header to not have a value (more precisely, to have a
value of length 0, as there is no numeric value preceding the
2011/8/4 Peter Krebs pkr...@gmail.com:
I have a question regarding the ABNF of the header component of a
SIP/SIP-URI as defined in RFC 3261, page 223. It seems from the rule that it
is possible for a header to not have a value (more precisely, to have a
value of length 0, as there is no
On 8/4/11 5:02 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
Good point. I confirm that = after hvalue is mandatory and as per
RFC 3261 BNF, the following SIP URI is valid:
sip:qwe.com?qwe=qweasd=
while this one is not valid:
sip:qwe.com?qwe=qweasd
I've confirmed it using my SIP parser which is
