Dmitry,
You probably mean
Refer-To: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Replaces=090459243588173445%3B
to-tag%3D9m2n3wq%3Bfrom-tag%3D763231&Require=replaces
(so with '?')
The reason for this rule is to avoid ambiguity, this is perhaps less the
case for '?' but for ';' the parameters would be considered part of the
header (and not of the URI) unless the form with '<' '>' is used.
In general, I would say it is recommended to always use the "name-addr"
form. However, following the Internet rule that you should be strict in what
you send and liberal in what you accept, the above format should be accepted
(also for From, To, etc).
We could add a remark to RFC3515, when(ever) that gets updated
Regards,
Jeroen
Dmitry Akindinov wrote:
> Hello,
>
> RFC 3261 imposes the following restriction on URIs presented in the
> Contact, From, To, Reply-To header fields:
>
> 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
> "<".
>
> On the other hand, RFC 3515 does not set such restriction:
>
> 2.1 The Refer-To Header Field
>
> Refer-To is a request header field (request-header) as defined by
> [1]. It only appears in a REFER request. It provides a URL to
> reference.
>
> Refer-To = ("Refer-To" / "r") HCOLON ( name-addr / addr-spec ) *
> (SEMI generic-param)
>
> This makes the following field legal:
>
> Refer-To: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];
> Replaces=090459243588173445%3B
> to-tag%3D9m2n3wq%3Bfrom-tag%3D763231&Require=replaces
>
> and some implementations do try to format Refer-To: fields this way.
> Should we accept this format, or should the RFC 3515 be corrected?
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
