{"draft":"draft-ietf-sipcore-name-addr-guidance-02","doc_id":"RFC8217","title":"Clarifications for When to Use the name-addr Production in SIP Messages","authors":["R. Sparks"],"format":["ASCII","HTML"],"page_count":"6","pub_status":"PROPOSED STANDARD","status":"PROPOSED STANDARD","source":"Session Initiation Protocol Core","abstract":"RFC 3261 constrained several SIP header fields whose grammar contains\r\nthe \"name-addr \/ addr-spec\" alternative to use name-addr when certain\r\ncharacters appear.  Unfortunately, it expressed the constraints with\r\nprose copied into each header field definition, and at least one\r\nheader field was missed.  Further, the constraint has not been copied\r\ninto documents defining extension headers whose grammar contains the\r\nalternative.\r\n\r\nThis document updates RFC 3261 to state the constraint generically\r\nand clarifies that the constraint applies to all SIP header fields\r\nwhere there is a choice between using name-addr or addr-spec.  It\r\nalso updates the RFCs that define extension SIP header fields using\r\nthe alternative to clarify that the constraint applies (RFCs 3325,\r\n3515, 3892, 4508, 5002, 5318, 5360, and 5502).","pub_date":"August 2017","keywords":[],"obsoletes":[],"obsoleted_by":[],"updates":["RFC3261","RFC3325","RFC3515","RFC3892","RFC4508","RFC5002","RFC5318","RFC5360","RFC5502"],"updated_by":[],"see_also":[],"doi":"10.17487\/RFC8217","errata_url":null}