metasystema.org
CurrentPROPOSED STANDARDIETF stream

RFC 8217: Clarifications for When to Use the name-addr Production in SIP Messages

In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC

RFC 3261 constrained several SIP header fields whose grammar contains the "name-addr / addr-spec" alternative to use name-addr when certain characters appear. Unfortunately, it expressed the constraints with prose copied into each header field definition, and at least one header field was missed. Further, the constraint has not been copied into documents defining extension headers whose grammar contains the alternative. This document updates RFC 3261 to state the constraint generically and clarifies that the constraint applies to all SIP header fields where there is a choice between using name-addr or addr-spec. It also updates the RFCs that define extension SIP header fields using the alternative to clarify that the constraint applies (RFCs 3325, 3515, 3892, 4508, 5002, 5318, 5360, and 5502).

Document record

Document ID
RFC8217
Published
August 2017
Authors
R. Sparks
Status
PROPOSED STANDARD
Stream
IETF
Area
art
Pages
6
Also known as
—
Updates:
RFC 3261, RFC 3325, RFC 3515, RFC 3892, RFC 4508, RFC 5002, RFC 5318, RFC 5360, RFC 5502

Related documents

Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.

Also filed under

About this page

The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.

Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.

Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?

canonical URL: /rfc/8217-clarifications-for-when-to-use-the-name-addr-production-in-sip-messages