Brett,
I'm not aware of anywhere that *says* anything about the
(in)significance of the order.
IMO, based on the overall philosophy of 3261 I would say that the
ordering must be insignificant.
Thanks,
Paul
On 8/28/15 1:36 PM, Brett Tate wrote:
Hi,
RFC 3261 section 7.3.1 presents the following common header format.
field-name: field-value *(;parameter-name=parameter-value)
Does RFC 3261 or another RFC indicate if the order of the parameters
defaults to being significant or insignificant?
RFC 3261 section 19.1.4 indicates the parameter ordering within SIP URI is
insignificant. However, I haven't found anything definitive for the
parameters within a SIP header field.
Thanks,
Brett
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
