-----Original Message-----
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Krishna Kanth
T
Sent: Sat 1/31/2004 9:29 PM
To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject:
[Sip-implementors] Queries on grammar
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
[ABN] here its given only one value. if needed it
could be something like "auth, auth-int, xyz, ". same thing
for domain parameter also. theser 4 headers have some different
treatment as its already mentioned in the Rfc3261...
you would have noticed the uniqueness of these 4
headers (proxu-authenticate, authenticate, authorization,
proxy-authoriization) COMMA used as parameter separator instead of SEMICOLON,
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
