|
Hi,
I have two doubts on the grammar
:-
1. First one is on the grammar of "Proxy-Authenticate" and "WWW-Authenticate" header. The
grammar is as follows :-
Proxy-Authenticate =
"Proxy-Authenticate" HCOLON
challenge
challenge = ("Digest" LWS digest-cln *(COMMA digest-cln)) / other-challenge digest-cln = realm / domain / nonce / opaque / stale / algorithm / qop-options / auth-param domain = "domain" EQUAL LDQUOT URI *( 1*SP URI ) RDQUOT URI = absoluteURI / abs-path qop-options = "qop" EQUAL LDQUOT qop-value *("," qop-value) RDQUOT qop-value = "auth" / "auth-int" / token Here grammar says that the value of qop is nothing
but comma seperated values enclosed in LDQUOT and RDQUOT. Similarly even the
domain is defined to be comma seperated uri's enclosed in LDQUOT and RDQUOT. But
the example given for proxy-authenticate header in section 20.27 of rfc3261is as
follows :-
Proxy-Authenticate:
Digest realm="atlanta.com",
domain="sip:ss1.carrier.com", qop="auth", nonce="f84f1cec41e6cbe5aea9c8e88d359", opaque="", stale=FALSE, algorithm=MD5 In the example above, neither qop nor domain values are enclosed in LDQUOT and RDQUOT. Is this a bug in rfc3261 ?? If so what is the correct notation to use ? 2. Is there any rfc on tel url that obseletes
rfc2806. This is because tel url grammar looks pretty old. The way the domain
and quoted strings are defined in it are different from the way it is defined in
rfc 3261. So i just wanted to know if there an updated rfc for tel
url.
Rgds
Krishna
|
_______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
