El Miércoles, 13 de Enero de 2010, Brett Tate escribió: > > > Of course, "anonymous" is not a valid TEL number so the above > > > SIP URI (which comes from a TEL URI due to the presence of > > > "user=phone") makes no sense (IMHO). > > > > It makes no sense. But the decision that it makes no sense is up > > to a server for the domain of the URI. > > In case it matters, "anonymous" does violate the character set for the > digits portion of telephone-subscriber. Thus although maybe not > desirable, a strict parser may reject the INVITE with a 400 response.
It's just a semantinc subject. No strict SIP parser should reject such SIP URI even if its username part doesn't conform to telephone-subscriber grammar when "user=phone" parameter is present. I've tested it with my SIP parser which is 100% strict according to RFC 3261 grammar and RFC 3966 (TEL). Such SIP URI is valid according to BNF. -- Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
