Hello all,
Sorry to be pedantic about this, but it's something that's been bugging me:
bis-05's BNF indicates that LWS is permitted either side of the "@" in a
Call-ID field, though I've never seen an example of that. (Indeed, if you
read the BNF strictly, LWS is *not optional* in ATSIGN and various other
punctuation, and LWS *must* contain at least one SP or HT character.)
Now, the general rule for LWS is than all LWS is semantically equivalent to
a single SP and may be replaced with such during parsing [bis-05 4462]. But
definition of Call-ID says that values are compared "byte-by-byte" [3472].
The combination of these two statements is confusing.
For instance, which of the following are equivalent?
Call-ID: 1234 @ foo.com
Call-ID: 1234 @ foo.com
Call-ID: 1234
@
foo.com
Call-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm guessing that the first 3 are equivalent, and the last one is different;
even though this last one is the reduction to canonical form. Is this right?
Nick
--
Nick Hollinghurst [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Research Engineer
AT&T Laboratories, Cambridge, England
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
