If the server supports translation of services as described in RFC 5031 it might have to support absolute URI.
INVITE urn:service:sos The clients can use this to get to an sos service without needing to know what the actual number is - 911 in the US, 100 in XYZ country etc Regards, Krish -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Iñaki Baz Castillo Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 3:27 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [Sip-implementors] Any usage of absoluteURI for a SIP server ? Hi,RFC 3261 BNF section defines Request-URI as follows: Request-URI = SIP-URI / SIPS-URI / absoluteURI While it's obvious doing a complete parsing of SIP and SIPS URI, I wonder how useful is parsing sctrictly an absolute URI. Note that absoluteURI contains a very complex grammar: absoluteURI = scheme ":" ( hier-part / opaque-part ) hier-part = ( net-path / abs-path ) [ "?" query ] net-path = "//" authority [ abs-path ] abs-path = "/" path-segments opaque-part = uric-no-slash *uric uric = reserved / unreserved / escaped uric-no-slash = unreserved / escaped / ";" / "?" / ":" / "@" / "&" / "=" / "+" / "$" / "," path-segments = segment *( "/" segment ) segment = *pchar *( ";" param ) param = *pchar pchar = unreserved / escaped / ":" / "@" / "&" / "=" / "+" / "$" / "," scheme = ALPHA *( ALPHA / DIGIT / "+" / "-" / "." ) authority = srvr / reg-name srvr = [ [ userinfo "@" ] hostport ] reg-name = 1*( unreserved / escaped / "$" / "," / ";" / ":" / "@" / "&" / "=" / "+" ) query = *uric IMHO for a SIP server parsing an absoluteURI is not useful at all (I don't consider, of course, the case of a server implementing SIP and HTTP and/or other protocols). So I wonder if would be possible to relax the absoluteURI grammar making it "faster" to parse, something like (not pure BNF): absoluteURI = scheme ":" 1*( any_char - ( "<" | ">" ) ) scheme = ALPHA *( ALPHA / DIGIT / "+" / "-" / "." ) In this way, the SIP parser would detect the absoluteURI scheme and pass it to a higher application logic handling protocols more than SIP and SIPS. Do you consider it correct? any dissadvantage? (Please, consider common cases implementing a normal SIP server). Thanks a lot. PD: I would also consider "tel" URI: Request-URI = SIP-URI / SIPS-URI / TEL-URI / absoluteURI -- Iñaki Baz Castillo _______________________________________________ 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
