RFC 3515, RFC 4508, RFC 3261: angle bracket requirement

The following rfc3261 section 20 text defines when a
name-addr must be
used instead of an addr-spec.  However the text currently
does not
appear generic enough to apply to all headers.

RFC 3261 section 20: "The Contact, From, and To header
fields contain a
URI.  If the URI contains a comma, question mark or
semicolon, the URI
MUST be enclosed in angle brackets (< and >).  Any URI
parameters are
contained within these brackets.  If the URI is not enclosed
in angle
brackets, any semicolon-delimited parameters are
header-parameters, not
URI parameters."

RFC 3515 does not mention the rfc3261 rules.  RFC 4508 only
mentions the
parameter impacts.

Does the rfc3261 rule concerning comma and question mark
apply to the
refer-to header?  

Does the rfc3261 rule apply to all sip headers defined as
containing
name-addr or addr-spec?  And if so, should the text be
update per
sip-essential-correction process?

If comma and question mark aspects of the rfc3261 text is
not relevant
Refer-To, what is reason for the difference?

Thanks,
Brett


_______________________________________________
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

That language is intended to apply to any uses of
name-addr.
There's a closely related bug captured already: http://bugs.sipit.net/ 
show_bug.cgi?id=765

RjS

On Dec 7, 2007, at 8:08 AM, Brett Tate wrote:

> The following rfc3261 section 20 text defines when a
name-addr must be
> used instead of an addr-spec.  However the text
currently does not
> appear generic enough to apply to all headers.
>
> RFC 3261 section 20: "The Contact, From, and To
header fields  
> contain a
> URI.  If the URI contains a comma, question mark or
semicolon, the URI
> MUST be enclosed in angle brackets (< and >). 
Any URI parameters are
> contained within these brackets.  If the URI is not
enclosed in angle
> brackets, any semicolon-delimited parameters are
header-parameters,  
> not
> URI parameters."
>
> RFC 3515 does not mention the rfc3261 rules.  RFC 4508
only  
> mentions the
> parameter impacts.
>
> Does the rfc3261 rule concerning comma and question
mark apply to the
> refer-to header?
>
> Does the rfc3261 rule apply to all sip headers defined
as containing
> name-addr or addr-spec?  And if so, should the text be
update per
> sip-essential-correction process?
>
> If comma and question mark aspects of the rfc3261 text
is not relevant
> Refer-To, what is reason for the difference?
>
> Thanks,
> Brett
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

   From: "Brett Tate" <brettbroadsoft.com>

   The following rfc3261 section 20 text defines when a
name-addr must be
   used instead of an addr-spec.  However the text currently
does not
   appear generic enough to apply to all headers.

   RFC 3261 section 20: "The Contact, From, and To
header fields contain a
   URI.  If the URI contains a comma, question mark or
semicolon, the URI
   MUST be enclosed in angle brackets (< and >).  Any
URI parameters are
   contained within these brackets.  If the URI is not
enclosed in angle
   brackets, any semicolon-delimited parameters are
header-parameters, not
   URI parameters."

   RFC 3515 does not mention the rfc3261 rules.  RFC 4508
only mentions the
   parameter impacts.

   Does the rfc3261 rule concerning comma and question mark
apply to the
   refer-to header?  

   Does the rfc3261 rule apply to all sip headers defined as
containing
   name-addr or addr-spec?  And if so, should the text be
update per
   sip-essential-correction process?

   If comma and question mark aspects of the rfc3261 text is
not relevant
   Refer-To, what is reason for the difference?

The shortest statement of the real rule is "In
locations where the
grammar allows either name-addr or addr-spec to appear, the
following
restriction applies:  If the URI contains a comma, question
mark or
semicolon, the name-addr form must be used."  This rule
covers all
extension headers, etc., because it is necessary to
disambiguate
"name-addr / addr-spec".

As you can see from section 2.1 of RFC 3515, Refer-To allows
both
name-addr and addr-spec and so is subject to this
disambiguation rule.

I've overstated things above -- the restriction is needed
to
disambiguate appearances of semicolon.  The restriction in
regard to
comma is needed to disambiguate uses of addr-spec in lists. 
The
restriction in regard to question mark doesn't seem to be
needed for
disambiguation -- I wonder why it's there.

Dale


_______________________________________________
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