This has been noted, and it will be fixed in bis-06. Zero spaces will be allowed surrounding punctuation.
Brian > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 10:47 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Sip-implementors] Whitespace in Call-ID? > > > 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 > _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
