|
Moved
solely to Sip-implementors.
I'd
say this is certainly a RFC-2543 issue - in RFC-3261, the definition has changed
so the "@" symbol is not allowed in either parts of Call-Id.
Given
the 2543 definition, I'd say it would be implementation-specific on how multiple
"@" symbols are parsed (which is probably one reason it was changed in
3261). Personally, I'd lean towards not allowing the "@" sign so the
messages interop properly with 3261 UAs/proxies, which will reject a
Call-Id as you form it below.
-
rob
Hi,
SUB: a
doubt in SIP header (call-id)
I had faced one problem when i'm testing my company's inhouse product, which is
implementing SIP.
Here my role is :
To test
the parser modules ---- which are written for headers in SIP like
---- call-id, to, from, via, contact,
contact-length, cseq......
When i'm
trying to test the call-id module... i gave a header like the following
one
it is parsed with local-id
as 87602 and
but what is I expect was
local-id as 87602@141351
and
since as per the rfc 2543....... I can give the
'reserved' letter '@' in
local-id.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call-ID = ( "Call-ID" | "i" ) ":" local-id "@" host
local-id = 1*uric
uric = reserved | unreserved | escaped
reserved = ";" | "/" | "?" | ":" | "@" | "&" | "=" | "+" | "$" |
","
unreserved = alphanum | mark
mark = "-" | "_" | "." | "!" | "~" | "*" | "'" | "(" | ")"
escaped = "%" hex hex
alphanum = alpha | digit
digit = "0" | "1" | "2" | "3" | "4" | "5" | "6" | "7" | "8" | "9"
alpha = lowalpha | upalpha
upalpha = "A" | "B" | "C" | "D" | "E" |
"F" | "G" | "H" | "I" | "J" | "K" | "L" | "M" | "N" | "O" | "P" | "Q" | "R" |
"S" | "T" | "U" | "V" | "W" | "X" | "Y" | "Z"
lowalpha = "a" | "b" | "c" | "d" | "e" | "f" | "g" |
"h" | "i" |"j" | "k" | "l" | "m" | "n" | "o" | "p" | "q" | "r" |"s" | "t" |
"u" | "v" | "w" | "x" | "y" | "z"
hex = "A" | "B" | "C" | "D" | "E" | "F"| "a" | "b" | "c" | "d" | "e" | "f"
| digit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So my doubt was " whether the reserved
letter @ can be used in the local-id part of call-id
header or not" ...... could u please clarify.. this
issue....
Please find some time to clear this....I'll be
greatful to u...
Regards,
Senapathy T.
|