Brett Tate wrote:
>> Question is: Should the To in that (re)INVITE
>> contain ';foo=bar' ???
>>
>> AFAIK the contents of that To header are to be generated
>> from dialog state information. The URI and the tag are
>> part of that state, but other header parameters from the
>> original INVITE are not, and hence would not be available
>> for the addressing of subsequent messages.
>>
>> Does anyone have a different opinion?
>
> Partially.
>
>
>> If so, can you justify it?
>
> If really supposed to only use dialog state information, all the RFCs showing
> display-name within To and From of requests within dialog are incorrect:
> rfc3665, rfc3666, rfc5359, and etcetera.
> However AFAIK, rfc3261 is silent concerning if To and From's non dialog
> related content should or should not continue to be sent within subsequent
> requests within dialog.
I don't take it to be a MUST to only use the dialog state.
If you *want* to preserve some other stuff, or just change it
arbitrarily, I see no reason why you can't. But I can't require you to
do so.
> Concerning your foo=bar question, I agree that it is valid to drop the
> parameter. Sections 20.20 and 20.39 (and silence of 12.2.1.1) indicate that
> it is valid. However as you noticed, such behavior can cause
> interoperability problems.
Thanks,
Paul
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
