[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Hi Michael, > > as per the extract of Section 10.2.1.2 from RFC 3261 referred by you > states that the "q" parameter indicates a relative preference for the > particular Contact. As suggested by you, URI's without a q > parameter should > be treated as having an implicit q-value of 1 would indicate that the > contact without the q-value would be given a higher > preference above the > other. Hence, it would contradict the extract (i.e "relative > preference").
I don't follow your logic here. There is no contradiction, as I see it. However, this is entirely moot, as I have found another reference that supports my argument. RFC3841 (Caller Preferences) Section 7.2.3: If the contact predicate was learned through a REGISTER request, the q-value is equal to the q-value in the Contact header field parameter, else "1.0" if not specified. > As, per me i think that processing the contact with "q" > parameter first and > then the other one (i.e without the "q" parameter) would be a better > option. This approach is analogous to assuming an implicit q-value of less than zero. I cannot understand how applications such as voicemail (see draft-ietf-sipping-callerprefs-usecases-05.txt Section 3.10) could be made to work under these conditions. Regards, Michael Procter _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
