From: Paul Kyzivat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Consider the following:
From: PaulKyzivat
From: "PaulKyzivat"
I can certainly imagine that a stack might receive either of these, and
convert into some internal form that is identical for both. Then when
generating a new request it
Brett,
Consider the following:
From: PaulKyzivat
From: "PaulKyzivat"
I can certainly imagine that a stack might receive either of these, and
convert into some internal form that is identical for both. Then when
generating a new request it might re-encode it using a different form
than it re
> I don't see anything in the material you quote
> that says whether or not the quoted diversion
> and the unquoted diversion mean the same thing.
> They are both reasons, but are they the same reason?
> In this context it seems probable that they
> ought to mean the same thing, but its not en
I agree with Robert.
The following is a more direct answer to your specific question.
Brett Tate wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> Concerning rfc3261 and rfc4485 usage of gen-value and quoted-string, are
> the quotes considered part of the value during use?
>
> Since I didn't notice a good example with
In general, any literal "'s that appear in a BNF rule are not quotes
you will see in messages
formed from that grammar. There will be a rule (in 3261's case it is
DQUOTE) that represents
those.
That's not going to help with display-name, since the DQUOTEs are part
of that expansion, but it s
Greetings,
Concerning rfc3261 and rfc4485 usage of gen-value and quoted-string, are
the quotes considered part of the value during use?
Since I didn't notice a good example within rfc3261, I'll ask more
specifically concerning the forbidden draft-levy-sip-diversion. :)
diversion-reason = "reas
