At 09:31 PM 10/6/2003, Ganesh Jayadevan wrote: >Jiri, > >I have two points to make (one for and one against): > >1. Where do we draw the line? Under the liberal guideline, should we let anything >pass? > I would say if the parser did not die but rejected the message gracefully, then > the rule has been > applied. The difficulty comes in attaching semantics to the parameter values (as > somebody > else pointed out).
I didn't ask for value processing. With RR, I suggested parameter-presence test for lr. > The goal of interop should be the verification of the standard. If the standard is > broken, we then > lobby to fix it. I don't think we should be bending rules motivated by > interoperability. >2. If this helps any, should there be a rule that says all parameters will be in the >form of > n-v pairs? Might help parsing be more generic and less context sensitive. If we rebuilt SIP, I would advocate less syntactical choices for a single thing -- no doubt they make parser more complex -> more error-prone and slower. However, with amount of SIP deployed today, reformulating the syntax would quite likely cause more headache than benefits. -jiri _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
