Subject: [Sipping] "addr-spec" usage in Rfc 3261 and 3325

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:59:38 +0530

Hi All,
	I have a question regarding usage of "addr-spec" as defined in
RFC3261 and its usage in RFC3325.
At all references to "addr-spec" in RFC3261, it is said (example: sec
20.10):

   Even if the "display-name" is empty, the "name-addr" form MUST be
   used if the "addr-spec" contains a comma, semicolon, or question
   mark.  There may or may not be LWS between the display-name and the
   "<".

This means, if the uri contains comma, semicolon or question mark, then
the uri should be enclosed within angle braces "<" and ">".
Where as in RFC3325, such a reference is missing. Does it mean that
uri's with comma, semicolon or question mark should not be enclosed
within angle braces in "P-Asserted-Identity" header? Please clarify.

Thanks,
-Vasanth

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments of core SIP

---

From: Manjunath Warad <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:52:05 +0530

Please see inline...

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 4:00 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Sipping] "addr-spec" usage in Rfc 3261 and 3325

Hi All,
	I have a question regarding usage of "addr-spec" as defined in
RFC3261 and its usage in RFC3325. At all references to "addr-spec" in
RFC3261, it is said (example: sec
20.10):

This means, if the uri contains comma, semicolon or question mark, then the
uri should be enclosed within angle braces "<" and ">". Where as in RFC3325,
such a reference is missing. Does it mean that uri's with comma, semicolon
or question mark should not be enclosed within angle braces in
"P-Asserted-Identity" header? Please clarify.

[MSW] AFAIK, if the angle braces "<" and ">" are present then the parameters
are considered as uri params if seperated by ";" or uri headers if seperated
by "?". In otherwords, if angle braces are absent, then the parameter
following the uri is considered to be header params.

For e.g.,
Route: sip:[email-masked];lr;ttl=12
	In this case, lr & ttl is considered to be header parameter i.e.,
Route header parameter.

Quote from RFC 3261,
	
	If no "<" and ">" are present, all parameters after the URI are
header
	parameters, not URI parameters.  

Please let me know if more clarifications are required.

Regards,
Manju

Thanks,
-Vasanth

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip Use
[email-masked] for new developments of core SIP

---

From: "Dale R. Worley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 12:33:01 -0500

> within angle braces in "P-Asserted-Identity" header? Please clarify.

As you've probably noted, P-Asserted-Identity can't be parsed easily
unless the strictures of RFC 3261 sec. 20.10 apply to it.

I would say that as a general rule, the rules of 20.10 implicitly apply
to all places in the grammar where "name-addr / addr-spec" is seen.
20.10 mentions the Contact, To, and From headers, but it seems to have
overlooked Reply-To.  And as you note, P-Asserted-Identity contains that
alternative as well.

Dale