See 20.10 in RFC3261; When the header field value contains a display name, the URI including all URI parameters is enclosed in "<" and ">". If no "<" and ">" are present, all parameters after the URI are header parameters, not URI parameters. The display name can be tokens, or a quoted string, if a larger character set is desired.
Even if the "display-name" is empty, the "name-addr" form MUST be used if the "addr-spec" contains a comma, semicolon, or question mark. There may or may not be LWS between the display-name and the "<". These rules for parsing a display name, URI and URI parameters, and header parameters also apply for the header fields To and From. > From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > When there is ambiguity about whether a parameter is a uri parameter or > a header parameter, then it is a header paramter. So in: > > To: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];xxx=1 > From: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];yyy=2>;zzz=3 > > xxx and zzz are header parameters while yyy is a header parameter. I guess what you meant to say was that yyy is a URI parameter :) > > Paul > > Nils Ohlmeier wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I have a small problem while writing a SIP parser: how can I distinguish > > between URI and Contact (and To/From) parameters when the URI is only an > > addr-spec but a name-adr (which means no displayname and no brackets > around > > the URI)? > > > > According to the BNF in RFC 3261 the following Contact should be valid: > > > > m: sip:abc:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:1234;foo=1;bar=2 > > > > But foo=1 is an URI parameter and bar=2 is a Contact parameter. From my > point > > of view their is no way for a parser to distinguish between them. Either > both > > parameters will be treated as URI parameters or as Contact parameters. > > > > Their is no problem when I write it like this: > > > > m: <sip:abc:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:1234;foo=1>;bar=2 > > > > or > > > > m: sip:abc:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:1234;foo=1?test&header;bar=2 > > > > According to the BNF the first alternative should be possible too, but I > doubt > > that it can be interpreted correct by any parser. > > > > Did I oversaw something? Any ideas, comments are welcome. > > > > Greetings > > Nils Ohlmeier > > _______________________________________________ > > Sip-implementors mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors > > > > _______________________________________________ > Sip-implementors mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
