[SIPForum-discussion] Diversion Header Syntax
caglar er
beratcaglar at yahoo.com
Fri Sep 9 12:06:10 UTC 2011
I dont think they are mandatory. Most SIP Servers can be able to handle them and generate without quatas. For ex Nortel-Genband SIP devices are also can be able to handle them wıthout quoatas
B. Caglar ER
From: mustafa aydin <mustafaydin82 at yahoo.com>
To: "discussion at sipforum.org" <discussion at sipforum.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2011 2:53 PM
Subject: [SIPForum-discussion] Diversion Header Syntax
Hello,
Can someone tell if the format of the Diversion header below is an acceptable one, if so how can I prove it with RFCs?
<sip:xxxxxx at 84.44.72.6>;reason=unconditional;privacy=full;screen=no
My concern regarding this format is that if there must be quotes around the full and no values, because as per the RFC,the syntax is as below, but I found many implementations where there are no quotes around.
Diversion = "Diversion" ":" 1# (name-addr *(";" diversion_params ))
diversion-params = diversion-reason | diversion-counter |
diversion-limit | diversion-privacy |
diversion-screen | diversion-extension
diversion-reason = "reason" "="
( "unknown" | "user-busy" | "no-answer" |
"unavailable" | "unconditional" |
"time-of-day" | "do-not-disturb" |
"deflection" | "follow-me" |
"out-of-service" | "away" |
token | quoted-string )
diversion-counter = "counter" "=" 1*2DIGIT
diversion-limit = "limit" "=" 1*2DIGIT
diversion-privacy = "privacy" "=" ( "full" | "name" |
"uri" | "off" | token | quoted-string )
diversion-screen = "screen" "=" ( "yes" | "no" | token |
quoted-string )
diversion-extension = token ["=" (token | quoted-string)]
.
Thanks is in advance
Mustafa AYDIN
_______________________________________________
This is the SIP Forum discussion mailing list
TO UNSUBSCRIBE, or edit your delivery options, please visit http://sipforum.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Post to the list at discussion at sipforum.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sipforum.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20110909/115520c3/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the discussion
mailing list