Subject: Re: RFC 2543 / bug report

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 16:19:12 +0530

This brings me to point out that the enire grammar does not seem to be
complete. When we were writing ours, we noticed quite a few tokens (I think
one was delta-seconds and some others) that did not have an expansion -
although some of them were easily understandable . Also, if I remember
correctly, things like telephone-subscriber etc dont feature on the right
hand side of any production (the RFC mentions it as an example though, if i
remember right)

also for guys who are actually trying to use a lex tool, some hyperlinked
version of the complete grammar would be of great help - I have a nearly
complete linked version (some missing tokens which I did not find are not
linked) - so if anyone wants it for ease of reference, feel free to take it
from me :-) (altho it needs more work ;)

Regds
Arjun

Bernie Höneisen <[email-masked]> on 08/12/99 01:53:34 PM

To:   [email-masked]
cc:
Subject:  RFC 2543 / bug report

Content-type: text/plain; charsetÿ-ascii

Hi,
I am writing a paser for the SIP protocol and found some problem in
RFC 2543. There is a mismatch between the ABNF spec and the examples:
ABNF:
  Contact ÿ "Contact" | "m" ) ":"
             ("*" | (1# (( name-addr | addr-spec )
             [ *( ";" contact-params ) ] [ comment ] )))
>From the examples, that use contact-params:
Contact: <sip:[email-masked]:3890;transportýp>
Contact: <sip:[email-masked]:5080;maddrÿare.caller.com>
These exemples don't follow the ABNF Spec. the contact-params should be
outside the brackets.
Is this an already known bug?
Is there a bug-list available for RFC 2543 ?
What about a possible bug-list for RFC 2327 ?
Greetings
 Bernie

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 10:44:29 -0400

[email-masked] wrote:
> one was delta-seconds and some others)

You're right about delta-seconds. Please share specific other instances
where its missing so it can be fixed.

 that did not have an expansion -
> hand side of any production (the RFC mentions it as an example though, if i

Also correct. Interestingly, the point of the user parameter is to
indicate whether
the userinfo field is formatted according to telephone-subscriber. Can
lex support
things like that?

> from me :-) (altho it needs more work ;)

Great! Please send a pointer when its ready.

-Jonathan R.
-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg                       Lucent Technologies
Member of Technical Staff                   101 Crawfords Corner Rd.
High Speed Networks Research                Holmdel, NJ 07733
FAX: (732) 834-5379                         Rm. 4C-526
EMAIL: [email-masked]
URL: http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~jdrosen

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 15:03:31 -0400

> one was delta-seconds and some others) that did not have an expansion -

Note that RFC 2543 imports a number of definitions from HTTP/1.1. I
suspect delta-seconds is among those.

> hand side of any production (the RFC mentions it as an example though, if i

The telephone number is special in that it is a subset of user name. The
generic user name definition covers the syntax for phone numbers, so
syntactically there is no need to make a special case. However, if the
user name is a phone number, it should use the form given. Might be
useful to make that more explicit.

> from me :-) (altho it needs more work ;)

I'm sure it would be of general use. If you send it to me, I'll put it
on the SIP web page.

---

From: Anders Bo Kristensen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 13:39:54 +0100

> I'm sure it would be of general use. If you send it to me, I'll put it

Also, it would be useful to have a version of the grammar which allows
for the changes proposed by Henning and Jonathan in their caller
preferences draft. There are a few discrepancies between which
components of Contacts and sip-addrs etc. has to be present.

-- 
Anders Kristensen <[email-masked]>,
http://www-uk.hpl.hp.com/people/ak/
Hewlett-Packard Labs, Bristol, UK