> > 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 semantic 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.
The sender indicated user=phone when user portion cannot really be decoded (per BNF character restrictions) into a telephone-subscriber. Thus a vendor may choose to reject the request. Concerning the topic, I've heard of a vendor's protocol monitor (or similar device not directly involved within the call) being overly restrictive concerning ability to decode telephone-subscriber when user=phone. If I recall correctly, the user portion of sip-uri was "anonymous" or there was no user portion. The abnormal situation was causing them problems; I have no idea if they have relaxed their decoder. > 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. Does your parser allow invalid characters within the local-number-digits or does it not allow "anonymous;phone-context=national" to successfully decode into a telephone-subscriber? _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
