Thanks, to clarify: Some vendors implement:
Diversion: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;reason=unconditional Other vendors implement: Diversion: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;reason="unconditional" Both of these should be considered correct syntax ? Thanks, James -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 3:36 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] SIP ABNF Issue From: "Jackson, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> When a SIP header provides explicit values but also has the option to support other values using a quoted-string, is it valid syntax for the explicit values to be enclosed in double-quotes ? Well, yes. If a series of letters isn't enclosed in double-quotes, it's a use of a BNF variable, not an explicit value. For example, Diversion header reason syntax is: diversion-reason = "reason" "=" ( "unknown" | "user-busy" | "no-answer" | "unavailable" | "unconditional" | "time-of-day" | "do-not-disturb" | "deflection" | "follow-me" | "out-of-service" | "away" | token | quoted-string ) Is it valid for an explicit value like "unconditional" to be in double quotes ? If it wasn't in quotes, there would have to be a rule like: unconditional = "unconditional" for it to mean anything. Dale _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
