RFC 4566, "SDP: Session Description Protocol", July 2006

Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC 8866

Errata ID: 6022
Status: Reported
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Megan Ruggiero
Date Reported: 2020-03-16

Section 9 says:

   ; sub-rules of 'e=', see RFC 2822 for definitions
   email-address        = address-and-comment / dispname-and-address
                          / addr-spec
   address-and-comment  = addr-spec 1*SP "(" 1*email-safe ")"
   dispname-and-address = 1*email-safe 1*SP "<" addr-spec ">"

   ; sub-rules of 'p='
   phone-number =        phone *SP "(" 1*email-safe ")" /
                         1*email-safe "<" phone ">" /
                         phone

It should say:

   ; sub-rules of 'e=', see RFC 2822 for definitions
   email-address        = address-and-comment / dispname-and-address
                          / addr-spec
   address-and-comment  = addr-spec 1*SP "(" 1*email-safe ")"
   dispname-and-address = 1*email-safe 1*SP "<" addr-spec ">"

   ; sub-rules of 'p='
   phone-number =        phone *SP "(" 1*email-safe ")" /
                         1*email-safe 1*SP "<" phone ">" /
                         phone

Notes:

There's an inconsistency between the definitions of dispname-and-address and phone-number. I am not sure if this is intentional or not, and in practice this doesn't change what's matched (as email-safe includes spaces), but I thought it'd be worth mentioning since I myself got tripped up when translating the grammar.

Alternatively, perhaps 1*SP should be removed from dispname-and-address.

Report New Errata