In case of the To and the From
the ABNF says name-addr OR addr-spec,
>From = ( "From" / "f" ) HCOLON from-spec
from-spec = ( name-addr / addr-spec )
*( SEMI from-param )
while for the P-Called-Party-Id only name-addr is specified.
So according the ABNF the LA/RAQUOT must be there.
Stefaan
Vikram Chhibber wrote:
> A P-Called-Party-ID can have display name and must have addr-spec.
> Therefore the ABNF is correct since
> name-addr = [ display-name ] LAQUOT addr-spec RAQUOT.
>
> In the example LAQUOT and RAQUOT are missing for not only
> P-Called-Party-ID but also for To and From.
>
> ~Vikram
> The ABNF mention
> On 2/27/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> There seems to be an inconsistency in the rfc3455 P-Called-Party_ID
>> definition:
>>
>> according the ABNF, it has an name-addr and not an addr-spec
>> while in the example, the angular quotes are missing.
>> Is this a bug in the ABNF?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Stefaan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 5.2 P-Called-Party-ID header syntax
>>
>> The syntax of the P-Called-Party-ID header is described as follows:
>>
>> P-Called-Party-ID = "P-Called-Party-ID" HCOLON
>> called-pty-id-spec
>> called-pty-id-spec = name-addr *(SEMI cpid-param)
>> cpid-param = generic-param
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> F6 Invite P1 -> UA
>> INVITE sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] SIP/2.0
>> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.0.2.10:5060;branch=z9hG4bKg48sh128
>> Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.0.2.20:5060;branch=z9hG4bK03djaoe1
>> To: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> From: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];tag=938s0
>> Call-ID: 843817637684230998sdasdh09
>> P-Called-Party-ID: sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> CSeq: 101 INVITE
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sip-implementors mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
>>
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
