From: "Jackson, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Thanks, to clarify:
Some vendors implement: Diversion: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;reason=unconditional Other vendors implement: Diversion: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;reason="unconditional" Both of these should be considered correct syntax ? This is a delightfully complex problem. Directly, the grammar requires the format: Diversion: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;reason=unconditional But as in all productions for "field parameters" list this, the grammar admits extensions, and so what is admissible is always the same as "generic-param" in RFC 3261 section 25.1, which allows various forms of quoting. Further, the rules for "equal" URIs in section 19.1.4 suggest that different ways of quoting a parameter value are considered "equal". So you have to parse the header using a generalized parser anyway (lest it reject a future extension). And if you want to avoid trouble, it's best to accept any way of writing a value, provided its "interpretation" is the same as the canonical method. Dale _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
