AM
> To: sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Ordering of Via field value parameters
>
> On 10/5/15 7:23 PM, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> > David, IMHO that "same ordering" clause refers to the "header values"
(i.e.
> > individual
On 10/5/15 7:23 PM, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
David, IMHO that "same ordering" clause refers to the "header values" (i.e.
individual "via" lines), not to the order of parameters within ONE header
value. Order of values is important, because it defines your return path.
Which is why the clause is there
Maxim Sobolev writes:
> I respectfully disagree on that, there are many places throughout RFC where
> "header field values" refer specifically to the whole part after "Foo:",
> not just some piece of it (see my other message with a specific example
> referring to Vias). In fact I think "Via header
Fair enough, your distinction between field values and field value
parameters is probably correct.
In that case I don't see anything in RFC 3261 which specifically says
either way. Section 7.3 does refer to other sections, H4.2 and other
RFCs... these may elaborate but I'm not sure.
On 6 October
I respectfully disagree on that, there are many places throughout RFC where
"header field values" refer specifically to the whole part after "Foo:",
not just some piece of it (see my other message with a specific example
referring to Vias). In fact I think "Via header" is kinda jargon, which if
def
If it had started "The Via headers in the response..." then I would agree
with you.
But it starts "The Via header field values in the response" so I interpret
that to mean the order of the values within each individual Via header.
I believe the order of the Via headers is dealt with in a differen
David, further on "header field values" vs. "parameters". Please check the
very end of page 15 of the RFC here (https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3261.txt),
where it gives example of response having "three Via header field values -
one added by Alice's SIP phone, one added by the atlanta.com proxy, and o
David, IMHO that "same ordering" clause refers to the "header values" (i.e.
individual "via" lines), not to the order of parameters within ONE header
value. Order of values is important, because it defines your return path.
Which is why the clause is there, I believe. Order of parameters on the
oth
Hi Maxim,
Surely it says in the text you've quoted "and MUST maintain the same
ordering"?
On 6 October 2015 at 10:10, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> Sorry, I've obviously put colon instead of semi-colon in my example, the
> correct one should read:
>
> SIP/2.0/UDP 1.2.3.4;foo=bar;bar=baz
>
> vs.
>
> S
Sorry, I've obviously put colon instead of semi-colon in my example, the
correct one should read:
SIP/2.0/UDP 1.2.3.4;foo=bar;bar=baz
vs.
SIP/2.0/UDP 1.2.3.4;bar=baz;foo=bar
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> We came across a device that inserts some non
Hi everybody,
We came across a device that inserts some non-standard parameter into one
of the Via headers of request and has an issue dealing with situation when
this parameter is moved by our UAS to a different position of that
particular Via header in the response. Therefore, my question is: ar
11 matches
Mail list logo
