RE: "*" and "#" signs in the userinfo of SIP URI

Hi, 

>>In a SIP-URI you can't transport "*" or
"#" unescapted - even with
user=phone. 
> 
>last time i checked, * was valid char in userpart of sip
uri.

That may be true, yes.

>>It was discussed a while ago, and I proposed that it
should  be
allowed to send them unescaped in a SIP-URI (I 
>>know that some implementations do it).
> 
>yes, some implementation send # unescaped, but it makes
NO SENSE to
define yet another way to send #, since it can be 
>sent escaped.

I agree. We should have one mechanism - whatever that
mechanism is.

(I still think it should be allowed to send it unescapted,
because I
don't think it can "break" a SIP-URI.)

Regards,

Christer

_______________________________________________
Iptel mailing list
Iptelietf.org
https://
www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel

Christer Holmberg (JO/LMF) writes:

 > (I still think it should be allowed to send it
unescapted, because I
 > don't think it can "break" a SIP-URI.)

that is the only sensible rfc action if any are done. 
simply change the
grammar and allow # unescaped.  implementors are already
doing it in
wide scale.

-- juha

_______________________________________________
Iptel mailing list
Iptelietf.org
https://
www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel

I don't mind transferring # and * escaped or unescaped, it
is up to be
ABNF experts to agree on the right encoding.

What I strongly object is the use of "E" and
"F" representing the
respective signs.

Greetings,
Denis Alexeitsev 


_______________________________________________
Iptel mailing list
Iptelietf.org
https://
www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iptel