> FWIW, I agree with Dale.  I think the intent is case sensitive
> for the very reasons that Dale mentioned.

Maybe we are talking at cross purposes here.

The intent of the magic cookie inventor seems likely to be for the
comparison to be case sensitive - otherwise why bother with the
mixed case cookie.

The intent of RFC3261 is for the comparison to be case insensitive -
see RFC3261 section 7.3.1. 'When comparing header fields...'.

So, which intent do we honour?  I think we should follow the RFC.
I think the purpose of Bug 661 is to highlight the ambiguity, but
I can see that the text in the bug description isn't completely
unambiguous!

> Actually, I am not quite sure how to interpret the textual
> description in the bugs database.  I interpret it to mean
> that what is called out in the spec is the need to ensure
> that the branch id *following* the magic cookie be compared
> case insensitive (which is fine by me).

I'm not sure that that is the most natural reading.  I interpret
it as saying that the entire tag should be compared insensitively
despite the apparent case sensitivity of the cookie.

But to be honest, I don't think it really matters, if the following
rules apply to the UAC:

1) Never permute the case of branch IDs between retransmissions.
2) Always generate branch IDs that differ by more than just the
case of some letters.

The first rule is likely to be followed by everything, whether they
realise it or not.  The second rule won't cause many problems even
if it is broken - the chance of two branch IDs being generated that
only differ by the case of some letters, and that both are used within
32 seconds on the same dialog, seem small at best[1].

So, to conclude, I think the 'magic cookie' should be compared case
insensitively.  But if you want to compare it sensitively, I don't
think bad things will happen very often, if ever.

Regards,

Michael Procter

[1] Yes, you could arrange a generator to violate this more frequently,
but if you are aware of the problem, you are more likely to avoid it
rather than try to cause it.  I hope.

_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors

Reply via email to