List Info

Thread: RE: SIPit21: BNF future-proofing problem?




RE: SIPit21: BNF future-proofing problem?
country flaguser name
Sweden
2007-11-21 08:33:48
Hi, 

>So to restate the problem that was reported:
> 
>Right now, extension-header does not allow a new header
that 
>contains a quoted-string.
> 
>We have defined extensions (and are likely to define new

>ones) that use quoted-string (anything that uses
name-addr 
>for instance).
> 
>This inconsistency has caused interoperability problems
in 
>real implementations.
> 
>My original note was to suggest that we change 
>extension-header to actually allow the headers we're
going to define.
> 
>Christer's response could be read as a proposal to
change 
>quoted- string to achieve the same goal.

Yes.

Unless someone can show a use-case where the x00-x20
characters would be
needed, for backward compability reasons I think it's better
to restrict
quoted-string than to extend extension-header.

Regards,

Christer




> > Hi,
> >
> > I am still a little unclear what Robert is
proposing, but is there 
> > really a need to be able to use characters between
x00 and 
> x20 in SIP 
> > messages? Characters between x21 and x7F, and
between x80 
> and xBF, are 
> > ok since they are covered by TEXT-UTF8char and
UTF8-CONT.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Christer
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > 	From: Hisham Khartabil
[mailto:hisham.khartabilgmail.com]
> > 	Sent: 21. marraskuuta 2007 7:30
> > 	To: Robert Sparks
> > 	Cc: sip List
> > 	Subject: Re: [Sip] SIPit21: BNF future-proofing
problem?
> > 	
> > 	
> > 	I think I did misread Robert's original email. I
thought header 
> > values having quoted strings are currently not
allowed and Robert 
> > wanted to change RFC2822. Now I realise that you
can have 
> header field 
> > values with quoted string. Therefore I support the
correction that 
> > Robert is proposing.
> > 	
> > 	Hisham
> > 	
> > 	
> > 	On 21/11/2007, Hisham Khartabil
<hisham.khartabilgmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > 		This is a big change if we do adopt it. It will

> cause a lot of 
> > problem to parsers that handle extenion headers
today and is not 
> > backwards compatible. Why isn't the extension
header as is defined 
> > today not sufficient?
> > 				
> > 		Hisham
> > 		
> > 		
> > 						On 20/11/2007, Robert
> > Sparks <rjsparksnostrum.com > wrote:
> >
> > 			The BNF in 3261 says the following:
> > 			
> > 			extension-header  =  header-name HCOLON 
> header-value
> > 			header-value      =  *(TEXT-UTF8char /
UTF8-CONT
> > / LWS)
> > 			
> > 			This is intended to be the catch-all 
> field for all future 
> > extensions
> > 			- older parsers working against this 
> BNF shouldn't barf
> > 			when we introduce a new header field.
> > 			
> > 			Now, we may have new fields in the 
> future that look like:
> > 			
> > 			NewHeader = new-header-name HCOLON
quoted-string
> > 			
> > 			And down inside quoted-string, we get:
> > 			
> > 			      quoted-string  =  SWS DQUOTE 
> *(qdtext / quoted-pair ) DQUOTE
> > 			      qdtext         =  LWS / %x21 / %x23-5B /
> > %x5D-7E
> > 			                        / UTF8-NONASCII
> > 			      quoted-pair  =  "" (%x00-09 /
%x0B-0C
> > 			                       / %x0E-7F)
> > 			
> > 			So, for instance, we could have inside 
> a quoted string the 2 byte
> > 			sequence  NULL
> > 			
> > 			This does not parse against 
> header-value above...
> > 			
> > 			Is this a problem? Some of the SIPit21 
> participants argued that it 
> > is.
> > 			
> > 			The projects I've been involved in 
> don't parse unknown headers and
> > 			the stacks will just hand up an 
> unparsed bucket of bits (the only 
> > rules
> > 			used are those necessary to identify 
> the next header-field 
> > starting).
> > 			
> > 			Would it be worth the effort to make 
> the BNF reflect that rather 
> > than
> > 			continuing with the incongruity that we 
> currently specify?
> > 			
> > 			RjS
> > 			
> > 			
> >
			_______________________________________________
> > 			Sip mailing list
> > https://ww
w1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
> > <https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>
> > 			This list is for NEW development of the 
> core SIP Protocol
> > 			Use sip-implementorscs.columbia.edu 
> for questions on current sip
> > 			Use sippingietf.org for new 
> developments on the application of sip
> > 			
> >
> >
> > 		
> 
> 


_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://ww
w1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementorscs.columbia.edu for questions on current
sip
Use sippingietf.org for new developments on the application of
sip

Re: SIPit21: BNF future-proofing problem?
country flaguser name
United States
2007-11-21 08:42:23
Christer Holmberg wrote:
> Unless someone can show a use-case where the x00-x20
characters would be
> needed, for backward compability reasons I think it's
better to restrict
> quoted-string than to extend extension-header.
>   

Certainly you mean 0x00-0x19, right? I'd like to be able to
use spaces 
inside quoted strings.

/a


_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://ww
w1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementorscs.columbia.edu for questions on current
sip
Use sippingietf.org for new developments on the application of
sip

RE: SIPit21: BNF future-proofing problem?
country flaguser name
Sweden
2007-11-21 11:42:53
Hi,
 
Another alternative would be to define an escaping mechanism
for quoted-strings in SIP messages, and require all
characters not allowed by the header-value ABNF to be
escaped.
 
Regards,
 
Christer 

________________________________

From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:christer.holmbergericsson.com]
Sent: Wed 21/11/2007 15:33
To: Robert Sparks
Cc: sip List
Subject: RE: [Sip] SIPit21: BNF future-proofing problem?




Hi,

>So to restate the problem that was reported:
>
>Right now, extension-header does not allow a new header
that
>contains a quoted-string.
>
>We have defined extensions (and are likely to define
new
>ones) that use quoted-string (anything that uses
name-addr
>for instance).
>
>This inconsistency has caused interoperability problems
in
>real implementations.
>
>My original note was to suggest that we change
>extension-header to actually allow the headers we're
going to define.
>
>Christer's response could be read as a proposal to
change
>quoted- string to achieve the same goal.

Yes.

Unless someone can show a use-case where the x00-x20
characters would be
needed, for backward compability reasons I think it's better
to restrict
quoted-string than to extend extension-header.

Regards,

Christer




> > Hi,
> >
> > I am still a little unclear what Robert is
proposing, but is there
> > really a need to be able to use characters between
x00 and
> x20 in SIP
> > messages? Characters between x21 and x7F, and
between x80
> and xBF, are
> > ok since they are covered by TEXT-UTF8char and
UTF8-CONT.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Christer
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> >     From: Hisham Khartabil
[mailto:hisham.khartabilgmail.com]
> >     Sent: 21. marraskuuta 2007 7:30
> >     To: Robert Sparks
> >     Cc: sip List
> >     Subject: Re: [Sip] SIPit21: BNF
future-proofing problem?
> >    
> >    
> >     I think I did misread Robert's original email.
I thought header
> > values having quoted strings are currently not
allowed and Robert
> > wanted to change RFC2822. Now I realise that you
can have
> header field
> > values with quoted string. Therefore I support the
correction that
> > Robert is proposing.
> >    
> >     Hisham
> >    
> >    
> >     On 21/11/2007, Hisham Khartabil
<hisham.khartabilgmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >             This is a big change if we do adopt
it. It will
> cause a lot of
> > problem to parsers that handle extenion headers
today and is not
> > backwards compatible. Why isn't the extension
header as is defined
> > today not sufficient?
> >                            
> >             Hisham
> >            
> >            
> >                                             On
20/11/2007, Robert
> > Sparks <rjsparksnostrum.com > wrote:
> >
> >                     The BNF in 3261 says the
following:
> >                    
> >                     extension-header  = 
header-name HCOLON
> header-value
> >                     header-value      = 
*(TEXT-UTF8char / UTF8-CONT
> > / LWS)
> >                    
> >                     This is intended to be the
catch-all
> field for all future
> > extensions
> >                     - older parsers working
against this
> BNF shouldn't barf
> >                     when we introduce a new header
field.
> >                    
> >                     Now, we may have new fields in
the
> future that look like:
> >                    
> >                     NewHeader = new-header-name
HCOLON quoted-string
> >                    
> >                     And down inside quoted-string,
we get:
> >                    
> >                           quoted-string  =  SWS
DQUOTE
> *(qdtext / quoted-pair ) DQUOTE
> >                           qdtext         =  LWS /
%x21 / %x23-5B /
> > %x5D-7E
> >                                             /
UTF8-NONASCII
> >                           quoted-pair  = 
"" (%x00-09 / %x0B-0C
> >                                            /
%x0E-7F)
> >                    
> >                     So, for instance, we could
have inside
> a quoted string the 2 byte
> >                     sequence  NULL
> >                    
> >                     This does not parse against
> header-value above...
> >                    
> >                     Is this a problem? Some of the
SIPit21
> participants argued that it
> > is.
> >                    
> >                     The projects I've been
involved in
> don't parse unknown headers and
> >                     the stacks will just hand up
an
> unparsed bucket of bits (the only
> > rules
> >                     used are those necessary to
identify
> the next header-field
> > starting).
> >                    
> >                     Would it be worth the effort
to make
> the BNF reflect that rather
> > than
> >                     continuing with the
incongruity that we
> currently specify?
> >                    
> >                     RjS
> >                    
> >                    
> >                    
_______________________________________________
> >                     Sip mailing list
> > https://ww
w1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
> > <https:
//www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>
> >                     This list is for NEW
development of the
> core SIP Protocol
> >                     Use sip-implementorscs.columbia.edu
> for questions on current sip
> >                     Use sippingietf.org
for new
> developments on the application of sip
> >                    
> >
> >
> >            
>
>


_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://ww
w1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementorscs.columbia.edu for questions on current
sip
Use sippingietf.org for new developments on the application of
sip




_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://ww
w1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementorscs.columbia.edu for questions on current
sip
Use sippingietf.org for new developments on the application of
sip

[1-3]

about | contact  Other archives ( Real Estate discussion Medical topics )