Subject: [dispatch] draft-mohali-dispatch-originating-cdiv-parameter: question/comment

From: Brett Tate <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 13:52:46 -0400

Hi,

Since draft-mohali-dispatch-originating-cdiv-parameter is updating RFC
5502, should the draft be updated to include the missing rule concerning
when name-addr must be used?

As mentioned within the following email from 2013, RFC 5502 does not
indicate to use the RFC 3261 section 20 bracket rule (or provide a similar
rule).  Without such a rule, it is ambiguous if parameters decode as part
of PServedUser-value or served-user-param.

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipcore/current/msg05731.html

Thanks,
Brett

---

From: Brett Tate <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 10:07:50 -0400

Hi,

You can ignore my question/comment since it is likely better to address
through errata.

I created errata ID 4648.

http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5502&eid=4648

Thanks,
Brett

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brett Tate [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 1:53 PM
> To: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]'
> Subject: draft-mohali-dispatch-originating-cdiv-parameter:
question/comment
> Since draft-mohali-dispatch-originating-cdiv-parameter is updating RFC
5502,
> should the draft be updated to include the missing rule concerning when
name-
> addr must be used?
indicate
> to use the RFC 3261 section 20 bracket rule (or provide a similar rule).
> Without such a rule, it is ambiguous if parameters decode as part of
> PServedUser-value or served-user-param.
>