________________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] On Behalf Of Alex Bakker [[email protected]]
To: <sip:192.168.0.247:5060;user=phone> _______________________________________________ To summarize and extend what others have said: This form is syntactically correct. The grammar for the headers is in RFC 3261 section 25.1. But beware that in any place where the BNF is "( name-addr / addr-spec )", the inherent ambiguity in parsing is resolved by this part of section 20.10: When the header field value contains a display name, the URI including all URI parameters is enclosed in "<" and ">". If no "<" and ">" are present, all parameters after the URI are header parameters, not URI parameters. The display name can be tokens, or a quoted string, if a larger character set is desired. Even if the "display-name" is empty, the "name-addr" form MUST be used if the "addr-spec" contains a comma, semicolon, or question mark. There may or may not be LWS between the display-name and the "<". These rules for parsing a display name, URI and URI parameters, and header parameters also apply for the header fields To and From. The conventional "user=phone" parameter is a URI parameter and so in this context should appear inside the <...>, as it is in your example. See section 19.1.1. The URI does not contain a user-part, so the user=phone parameter is semantically invalid, since the 'user' parameter describes the user-part. Since the "To" header value is mostly documentation, the SIP request should not be rejected because of this semantic error; rather the semantic error should be ignored. If some downstream processing needs to act on the URI, the 'user' parmeter should be ignored. Dale _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
