Subject: Re: [SIP] syntax clarifications in the bis-draft-02

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 19:31:58 +0530

Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]> on 09/19/2000 06:10:17 PM

To:   Ashok I Roy/HSSBLR
cc:   [email-masked]

Subject:  Re: [SIP] syntax clarifications in the bis-draft-02

[email-masked] wrote:
>
> hi..
>
> A  doubt in the ABNF of the bis-draft-02 dated Sept 04, 2000
>
> Alert-Info = "Alert-Info" ":" # ( " < " URI " > " *( ";" generic-param ))
> Call-Info = "Call-Info" ":" # ( " < " URI " > " *( ";" info-param) )
> Error-Info = "Error-Info" ":" # ( " < " URI " > " *( ";"generic-param ))
>
> all these indicate that the header can just be
>      alert-info:
> with blank header body...shouldn't they all be 1# ???

>>Generally, empty headers are ok. I don't see a reason to prohibit them.
>>Encourages robustness...

yes i agree with what you are trying to say...but shouldn't this be
standardised across ALL headers??..for example the syntax for route or
record route mandates at least one value in  the header body....now a
parser implemtation that rigidly adheres to the ABNF would throw errors  if
the record route field was empty though for robustness it shouldn't
...apart from robustness is there any other reason for allowing an empty
header?

imho that we should follow one convention...to either allow empty headers
or to treat them as errors...throughout.

regards,
ashok

------
ashok roy @ hughes software systems
------

_______________________________________________

_______________________________________________
SIP mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/sip