Hi Brett, In addition to my last mail , I have understood my mistake regarding your explanation of errata. I had mistakenly thought 4648 as RFC number whereas you had mentioned as Errata Id : 4648. I also realised that errata was reported very recently by you in March 2016.
The same can be found from this link https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5502 [which hyperlink also available in RFC 5502 html ] =============================================== RFC 5502, "The SIP P-Served-User Private-Header (P-Header) for the 3GPP IP Multimedia (IM) Core Network (CN) Subsystem", April 2009 Source of RFC: IETF - NON WORKING GROUP Area Assignment: rai Errata ID: 4648 Status: Reported Type: Technical Reported By: Brett Tate Date Reported: 2016-03-29 Section 6 says:EQUAL, HCOLON, SEMI, name-addr, addr-spec, and generic-param are defined in RFC 3261 [2]. It should say:EQUAL, HCOLON, SEMI, name-addr, addr-spec, and generic-param are defined in RFC 3261 [2]. If the URI contains a comma, question mark or semicolon, the URI MUST be enclosed in angle brackets (< and >). Notes:If addr-spec is used when there are parameters, it is ambiguous if the parameters are URI parameters or served-user-param. For consistency with RFC 3261 section 20, the same bracket rule is indicated even if comma and question mark do not cause an issue. ==============================Another question is that whether this correction [If the URI contains a comma, question mark or semicolon, the URI MUST be enclosed in angle brackets (< and >)] is also applicable for constructing Request-URI for any request INVITE sip:+34610510036;cic=+4...@spe01.vodafone.com;user=phone SIP/2.0 Is the above example correct ? Or we need to change as per the errata? Regards, Sourav On Wednesday, 29 June 2016 7:48 PM, Sourav Dhar Chaudhuri <sourav_mi...@yahoo.co.in> wrote: Hi Brett, Thanks a lot for your immediate response. Unfortunately, I did not get your explanation clearly "Based upon what you supplied, you need to implement RFC 5502 errata 4648concerning when Name-Addr must be used.......If you implement the errata, the brackets will allow the header to be decodedas you actually desired." What is the errata? What type of brackets need to be used for this case? Even After going through RFC 4648, I have not understood what change I require to perform in my example to get it parsed correctly in remote node !!!! Can you please explain in more detailed way? Also I have referred the Draft-sparks-sipcore-name-addr-guidance . There I can see Network Working Group R. Sparks Internet-Draft Oracle Updates: 3261, 3515, 5002, 5318, 5360, June 07, 2016 5502 (if approved)Intended status: Standards Track Expires: December 9, 2016 Clarifications for when to use the name-addr production in SIP messages draft-sparks-sipcore-name-addr-guidance-00 ================= 3. Updates to RFCs defining SIP Extension header fields [RFC3515], [RFC5002], [RFC5318], [RFC5360], and [RFC5502] are updated to include: This RFC contains the definition of one or more SIP header fields that allow choosing between addr-spec and name-addr when constructing header field values. As specified in RFCxxxx, the "addr-spec" form MUST NOT be used if its value would contain a comma, semicolon, or question mark. So is it already a standard? Or it will be accepted only after approval? Please excuse me for my ignorance. Thanks in advance for your comments. Regards,Sourav On Wednesday, 29 June 2016 6:56 PM, Brett Tate <br...@broadsoft.com> wrote: > So my understanding from above grammar that the header value > [sip:+ACE34610520436;cic=+7...@tqf01.test.abc;sescase=term;regstate=unreg] > has not violated the ABNF.. Can you please confirm if my > understanding is correct ? Based upon what you supplied, you need to implement RFC 5502 errata 4648 concerning when Name-Addr must be used. The ABNF violation is caused by cic being decoded as header parameter (i.e. violates generic-param rule). If you implement the errata, the brackets will allow the header to be decoded as you actually desired. Draft-sparks-sipcore-name-addr-guidance has been created to address the issue with RFC 5502 and other RFCs. _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
