________________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] On Behalf Of Adam Frankel [[email protected]]
Remote-Party-ID: "CISCO SYSTEMS " <sip:[email protected]:5060>;privacy=off P-Asserted-Identity: <sip:+1919392#[email protected]:5060> Notice after the "CISCO SYSTEMS " there are two space before the <sip The BNF doesn't seem clear on if the spacing is significant: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/50/I-D/sip-privacy-01.txt Remote-Party-ID = "Remote-Party-ID" ":" [display-name] "<" addr-spec">" *(";" rpi-token) Can anyone comment if this is correct Remote-Party-ID syntax or if only a single space should be allowed? (which our app is expecting) _______________________________________________ If you look at the ABNF in draft-ietf-sip-privacy-00 you will see that there should be *no* space between "display-name" and "<", because display-name ends with DQUOTE and the ABNF specifies display-name must be immediately followed by "<". (display-name is from RFC 3261, DQUOTE is inherited from RFC 2234 via 3261.) Indeed, the ABNF in draft-ietf-sip-privacy-00 is *terrible*. Compare the ABNF you quote above to a similar definition from 3261: Contact = ("Contact" / "m" ) HCOLON ( STAR / (contact-param *(COMMA contact-param))) contact-param = (name-addr / addr-spec) *(SEMI contact-params) name-addr = [ display-name ] LAQUOT addr-spec RAQUOT The use of HCOLON, SEMI, LAQUOT, and RAQUOT allows whitespace to be inserted in the expected locations. Assuming that Remote-Party-ID wants the <...> to be mandatory, the ABNF should be: Remote-Party-ID = "Remote-Party-ID" HCOLON [display-name] LAQUOT addr-spec RAQUOT *(SEMI rpi-token) In your position, I would parse the Remote-Party-ID header as if it was defined as I have just given, because that is what people will *expect* the definition to be, even if they don't correct the I-D that defines it. Dale _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
