The rationale is that to-header carries an Address of Record, a logical address of a person and therefore need not carry a port.
/Hisham > -----Original Message----- > From: ext Christer Holmberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 2:08 PM > To: Mariusz Maslowski > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Problem with BYE > > > > Hi, > > > Hey, I think the Port in the To-header is legal. This is explicitly > > said in the RFC, but in the grammar definition chapter it > is defined the > > same way as Request-URI. > > According to the table on page 152 the Port is not allowed in > the To header. I can understand that we don't want to put > possible maddr-, ttl- etc parameters in the To header, even > if used in the Request-URI, but I think that the port is more > part of the "core" URI > than it is a uri parameter... > > Regards, > > Christer Holmberg > Ericsson Finland > > > > > > > > Christer Holmberg wrote: > > > > >Hi, > > > > > >I wonder WHY the Port in the To-header illegal? I think > most people (the spec also says it) in the initial INVITE use > the same value in the Request-URI and To header URI, so why > should I have to remove the port from the To header if > present in the Request-URI? > > > > > > > > -- > > Pozdrofka, > > Mariusz Maslowski > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
