To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] SIP URI syntax vs. generic URI syntax
>
> This seems like a subject that should be taken up on an ietf list.
> sipcore is the likely one, though that is not the place to deal with the
> generic uri syntax.
&g
separating
hierarchical components are considered opaque by the generic URI
parser."
I mention it since some attempt to fit the sip-uri as a hier_part.
absoluteURI = scheme ":" ( hier_part | opaque_part )
opaque_part = uric_no_slash *uric
-Original Message-
From: Brett
ered opaque by the generic URI
parser."
I mention it since some attempt to fit the sip-uri as a hier_part.
absoluteURI = scheme ":" ( hier_part | opaque_part )
opaque_part = uric_no_slash *uric
-Original Message-
From: Brett Tate [mailto:br...@broadsoft.com]
Sent: F
r_part.
absoluteURI = scheme ":" ( hier_part | opaque_part )
opaque_part = uric_no_slash *uric
> -Original Message-
> From: Brett Tate [mailto:br...@broadsoft.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 09, 2015 4:10 PM
> To: 'Doug Sauder'; 'sip-implementors'
&g
Doug Sauder writes:
> The SIP URI syntax in RFC 3261 is not compatible with the generic
> URI syntax in RFC 3986. Specifically, the character "?" should
> not appear in the user component. Arguably, the character "/"
> also should not appear in the user component.
It does look like you're right.
: [Sip-implementors] SIP URI syntax vs. generic URI syntax
>
> The SIP URI syntax in RFC 3261 is not compatible with the generic URI
syntax
> in RFC 3986. Specifically, the character "?" should not appear in the
user
> component. Arguably, the character "/"
> also
The SIP URI syntax in RFC 3261 is not compatible with the generic
URI syntax in RFC 3986. Specifically, the character "?" should
not appear in the user component. Arguably, the character "/"
also should not appear in the user component.
Surely this topic must have been discussed before now. Does
