El Sábado, 29 de Marzo de 2008, Paul Kyzivat escribió: > Any header which uses the "repeated field separated by comma" format can > be repeated either via the comma for by multiple instances of the > header. It spells this out somewhere in 3261. > > In theory I think some form of header that doesn't meet that requirement > might also be allowed to be repeated, but I can't think of a case of > that right now.
Thanks Paul, finally I've found what you mean: 7.3.1 Header Field Format Multiple header field rows with the same field-name MAY be present in a message if and only if the entire field-value for that header field is defined as a comma-separated list [...] The exceptions to this rule are the WWW-Authenticate, Authorization, Proxy- Authenticate, and Proxy-Authorization header fields. Multiple header field rows with these names MAY be present in a message, but since their grammar does not follow the general form listed in Section 7.3, they MUST NOT be combined into a single header field row. > You are discovering that the ABNF isn't a complete specification of the > syntax. It doesn't cover this sort of thing. Maybe SIP ABNF grammar is not enought complex already? XD Thanks a lot. -- Iñaki Baz Castillo _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
