Brett,
I'm not aware of anywhere that *says* anything about the
(in)significance of the order.
IMO, based on the overall philosophy of 3261 I would say that the
ordering must be insignificant.
Thanks,
Paul
On 8/28/15 1:36 PM, Brett Tate wrote:
Hi,
RFC 3261 section 7.3.1 p
Hi,
RFC 3261 section 7.3.1 presents the following common header format.
field-name: field-value *(;parameter-name=parameter-value)
Does RFC 3261 or another RFC indicate if the order of the parameters
defaults to being significant or insignificant?
RFC 3261 section 19.1.4 indicates the parameter
You will likely be interested in RFC 5626 and RFC 3581.
> -Original Message-
> From: sip-implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu [mailto:sip-
> implementors-boun...@lists.cs.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of Ananth
Kollipara
> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 7:10 AM
> To: sip-implementors@lists.
Hi...I would like to understand, what is "Near end NAT traversal". What are the
challenges for SBC in supporting the same? Any input is highly appreciated.
Thanks,
Ananth
NOTE: This e-mail (including any attachments) is for the sole use of the
intended recipient(
