Uh, I see what you mean...I'll leave this to Ben but I would have thought msrp://[EMAIL PROTECTED] is legal but not when used in SDP msrp://[EMAIL PROTECTED]:1234 is legal everywhere
msrp://[EMAIL PROTECTED]: seems pretty weird as a legal thing to me - I guess we would follow what other URLs have done On 1/21/05 5:27 AM, "Christian Jansson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> The syntax allows port to be null. >> >> That being said, the MSRP spec requires an explicit value for port >> whenever the MSRP URL is exchanged in the SDP. But the MSRP relay spec >> allows for a null port in certain narrow circumstances. > > Just checking, msrp://[EMAIL PROTECTED]: would be valid? (notice the ":" > on the end). If not, the idea proposed to have port = 1*digit seems > good. > > > / Christian > >> >> Hope this helps! >> >> Ben. >> >> >> On Jan 19, 2005, at 3:30 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi All, >>> As per the grammar of Msrp-Url, >>> MSRP_urls = msrp-scheme "://" [userinfo "@"] hostport ["/" >>> resource] ";" transport >>> >>> and hostport as per RFC2396 is: >>> hostport = host [ ":" port ] >>> port = *digit >>> >>> The doubt is that ,can the port be NULL or it should have been >>> port =1 *digit >>> >>> Please clarify the doubt. >>> _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
