Subject: [Sip] question about RFC4240 (NETANN)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 13:48:44 +0200

Hello,

I have a problem with the RFC 4240.
The language parameter is defined in the page 10.
   locale-param    = "locale=" token
                        ; per RFC 3066, usually
                        ; ISO639-1_ISO3166-1
                        ; e.g., en, en_US, en_UK, etc.
and is explained in page 7
locale
      Specifies the language and optionally country variant of the
      announcement sequence named in the "play=" parameter.  RFC 3066
      [9] specifies the locale tag.  The locale tag is usually a two- or
      three-letter code per ISO 639-1 [11].  The country variant is also
      often a two-letter code per ISO 3166-1 [12].  These elements are
      concatenated with a single under bar (%x5F) character, such as
      "en_CA".

However whe I look in the RFC3066 I found
    Language-Tag = Primary-subtag *( "-" Subtag )

    Primary-subtag = 1*8ALPHA

    Subtag = 1*8(ALPHA / DIGIT)

In the RFC3261, the Accept-Langugae is defined as
Accept-Language  =  "Accept-Language" HCOLON
                     [ language *(COMMA language) ]
language         =  language-range *(SEMI accept-param)
language-range   =  ( ( 1*8ALPHA *( "-" 1*8ALPHA ) ) / "*" )

You can see that one RFC says that a "_" must be used between the two 
subtags while the two others says that it must be a "-".
And worse the RFC4240 refers to RFC3066 but uses a different syntax in 
its BNF and in its text (

Could someone clarify what I should use?

Thanks and regards,
Olivier

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip

---

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 02:31:36 -0400

Oooh - good catch of what looks like an error.  From a strict
constructionist point of view, the page 7 text is normative, so underbar
reigns.  However, one can make a very convincing argument the reference to
RFC 3066 is normative, hence it should be a hyphen.

AFAIK, all implementations to date of RFC 4240 use underbar.  Is there
enough confusion out there to create an update to 4240?  Note that 4240 is
not a PS, so this isn't a DS opportunity.

---

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 02:55:56 -0400

Whoops - meant to post to SIPPING list.  Please follow-up on SIPPING, not
SIP.