[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Sip] ABNF issue
Hi,
> CRLF/WSP is definitely a LWS, but you have to realise that the second CRLF signals the end of the SIP headers. The WSP that follows is part of the body so you can't combine the CRLF (that is part of the headers) and the WSP (which is part of the body) as a LWS
>
> sipheader:value/CRLF/CRLF/WSP
> ^
> |
> |
> sip headers end. WSP is sent to the body parser (which is presumably a separate one from the sip parser)
What you say would work very fine, but that is not how the grammar is defined today. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no CRLF/CRLF/WSP token defined in the grammar today. YES, you can do this in your implementation, so that is not the problem. My
original question was if there is a bug in the spec or not.
Regards,
Christer Holmberg
Ericsson Finland
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip