On Thursday 21 September 2006 23:12, Hume Vance wrote: Hume,
> In other words, is it safe to restrict a Route to 128 bytes, for example? Absolutely not! For the example you gave of a Route header, a number of implementations use the user part of the route URI for storing state between in-dialog requests, and as such can have very large user parts within the URI. Never assume any limits at all about any field value's (or component of) maximum length, number of parameters, headers, etc, as it's just asking for problems. > If not, what do implementations generally support? I would hope all implementations striving for interoperability would not place a maximum upper limit on number of fields, a single field value, or any components of it - and instead, as others have suggested, allocate a scratchpad or allocate on a per field/value/component basis as it is parsed. however, *if* you ever were to limit any message components's size for whatever reason, or the total size of all field values is too large due to hardware/cpu constraints, then ensure you reject/drop the message rather than just truncate a particular field. on this note, the same would apply to fields that have an numerical value where they overflow - don't wrap them, reject/drop them! ~ Theo -- Theo P. Zourzouvillys http://www.crazygreek.co.uk [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
