RE: [Sip] ABNF issue

["Rob Phillips" <rob@netrake.com>]

Christer Holmberg writes:

> IF the spec would "narrow" the ABNF rules by saying that the definition 
> of LWS is not valid in the beginning of a new line, OR if the spec 
> would define the CRLFCRLF token, we would not have this problem.

I guess the way I read

          generic-message  =  start-line
                              *message-header
                              CRLF
                              [ message-body ]

the spec essentially DOES define a defacto CRLF-CRLF token (if not in ABNF) by saying that:
1. All message headers end with CRLF, and
2. When another CRLF follows directly thereafter, that marks the end of the message headers and the beginning of the message body (if any).

So that in taking your example:

INVITE sip:12345@sip.com SIP/2.0 <CRLF_1>
Call-ID: 67890@sip.com <CRLF_2>
<CRLF_3>
<SP_1>CSeq: 100 INVITE <CRLF_4>

the precedence rules for interpreting CRLF_2-CRLF_3-SP_1 have to be treated as 
	(CRLF_2-CRLF_3) SP_1	"end of headers" 
instead of 
	CRLF_2 (CRLF_3-SP_1)	"CRLF LWS"

- rob
_______________________________________________
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