On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 9:43 AM, Scott Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 16:23 -0500, Robert Sparks wrote: > > >> > > > > From my memory of what happened at the time (which may be faulty): > > > > After a long, and in the end relatively pointless, argument about text > > vs binary formatting, the consensus of the group was to go a text > > format. > > Rather than invent one from scratch (which may or may not have > > rendered a more graceful syntax), the participants in the discussion > > decided > > explicitly to reuse as much of HTTPs grammar as we could. Some of the > > arguments were along the lines of speeding implementation by allowing > > the reuse of existing parser code. There were other points made at the > > time of a similar nature. > > There were also some at the time who had hopes that it could be made to > work transparently through HTTP proxies. That didn't last long, though. > > -- > Scott Lawrence tel:+1.781.229.0533;ext=162 or sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > sipXecs project coordinator - SIPfoundry http://www.sipfoundry.org/sipXecs > CTO, Voice Solutions - Bluesocket Inc. http://www.bluesocket.com/ > http://www.pingtel.com/ > >
Just out of curiosity, I wonder if there are any automatically generated parsers for the SIP ABNF out there. I can make what I did with antlr ( which successfully made the sip parser torture tests) available but I strongly recommend against that approach and I don't intend to debug it even if anybody is interested in picking it up. Ranga > > _______________________________________________ > Sip-implementors mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors > -- M. Ranganathan _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
