It has no meaning in that header field, but it's syntactically correct - it would just be an unknown header parameter.
Can you point to text in the RFC that led to the understanding you describe below? What should be there is an attempt to say that ->for a given header field<- generic-param is not going to match something explicitly defined for that header field. It doesn't constrain generic-param from matching things that were defined for _other_ header fields. RjS On Jun 19, 2007, at 3:41 PM, Mohsen Soroushnejad wrote: > Hi - > > Can a UAC in a Referred-By header use a "tag" parameter as a > generic-param? > > For example: > Referred-By: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;tag=erf12edy > > My understanding of a generic-param grammer is that it cannot be a > specific > param that is already defined in the ABNF. > > My sip parser "tells" me it's illegal to use "tag" as a generic- > param in a > SIP header, while my UAC vendor tells me it's legal to use > the "tag" as a generic param. > > Please advise. > > Thanks, > Mohsen > _______________________________________________ > 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
