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

Hi, 

>>2. Is it required to modify the syntax of the uri to
allow * and # 
>>un-escaped?
>> 
>>Yes, it would be the clearest and intuitive
solution.
> 
>Can somebody explain why it matters that the # be
unescaped?

It seems like it is rather widely deployed. And, eventhough
we generally
should not change our specifications just because someone
has
implemented them wrong, I think this is a case where it
could be done.
Because, it doesn't break the protocol, and there is no
good
justification to mandate the escaping ("general
parsers" would fail when
parsing TEL-URLs anyway).

>- Are you worried about people having to type in
dialstring 
>URIs with the escape? (Who would want to do so?)
> 
>- Or are you worried about people being confused when
looking 
>at them? 
>(Who will see them?
> 
>- Or are you worried about the burden on the recipient
that 
>has to process the escape? (Escapes must be processed in
any case.)

Maybe those who are implemeting it should answer...

>>BTW, I have not yet seen such a lot of people
answering "no" to both 
>>of the questions
> 
>I don't think we should be changing 3261 at this time
for so 
>petty a reason.
> 
>>There is a session in Prague where the issue with
unescaped # could be

>>brought up:
> 
>Do we have the time to spare for this? Maybe in the
evening, over beer.

As I said earlier, wouldn't this be something for BLISS to
discuss?

Regards,

Christer

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

Christer Holmberg (JO/LMF) wrote:
> Hi, 
> 
>>> 2. Is it required to modify the syntax of the
uri to allow * and # 
>>> un-escaped?
>>>
>>> Yes, it would be the clearest and intuitive
solution.
>> Can somebody explain why it matters that the # be
unescaped?
> 
> It seems like it is rather widely deployed. And,
eventhough we generally
> should not change our specifications just because
someone has
> implemented them wrong, I think this is a case where it
could be done.
> Because, it doesn't break the protocol, and there is no
good
> justification to mandate the escaping ("general
parsers" would fail when
> parsing TEL-URLs anyway).

Oh, so your argument for this is that you see it being used
in unescaped 
form today.

Are you really seeing URIs with user=dialstring today??? Or
are you 
talking about user=phone, or plain ordinary SIP URIs?

If the real problem is that there is widespread use of
unescaped # in 
SIP URIs, independent of user=dialstring, then I don't think
we should 
solve that problem in this draft. Instead this draft should
just accept 
the standard rules for sip URIs, and if they are eventually
changed it 
can apply here as well.

	Paul

	Paul

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