From: "Jackson, James" <james_jackson labs.att.com>
Thanks, to clarify:
Some vendors implement:
Diversion: <sip:userhost>;reason=unconditional
Other vendors implement:
Diversion: <sip:userhost>;reason="unconditional"
Both of these should be considered correct syntax ?
This is a delightfully complex problem.
Directly, the grammar requires the format:
Diversion: <sip:userhost>;reason=unconditional
But as in all productions for "field parameters"
list this, the
grammar admits extensions, and so what is admissible is
always the
same as "generic-param" in RFC 3261 section 25.1,
which allows various
forms of quoting. Further, the rules for "equal"
URIs in section
19.1.4 suggest that different ways of quoting a parameter
value are
considered "equal".
So you have to parse the header using a generalized parser
anyway
(lest it reject a future extension). And if you want to
avoid
trouble, it's best to accept any way of writing a value,
provided its
"interpretation" is the same as the canonical
method.
Dale
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementorscs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinf
o/sip-implementors
|