Irrespective of the number of spaces between Display Name & URI, both the FROM headers below are valid.
As per RFC 3261, Section 20.10 "There may or may not be LWS between the display-name and the "<". These rules for parsing a display name, URI and URI parameters, and header parameters also apply for the header fields To and From." Either Way, a 400 (Bad Request) is better suited to requests with malformed syntax as opposed to 403 (Forbidden) which indicates that server understood the request but is refusing to fulfill it. What are the UA & proxy devices (vendor, make etc.) in question? Regards, Gaurav -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Yunus OLGUN Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 2:32 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [Sip-implementors] From header field. Hi, There is a different "From" headers field on INVITE packets between at 1st leg and 2nd leg. At the first leg on "From" header field, there is a one space between display name and sip URI. But at the second leg, there are 3 spaces between display name and SIP URI. I'm suspecting of that usage. So calls failed with 403. Is it OK for that kind of usage at RFCs? UA -->(1) Proxy --> (2) (1) : From: "John X" <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;tag=494ed55b40f647a089c98c94261e2b 6c;epid=da75a5e811 (2): From: "John X" <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:5060>;tag=494ed55b40f647a089c98c94261e2b6c Best Regards, Yunus OLGUN _______________________________________________ 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
