Sorry, I've obviously put colon instead of semi-colon in my example, the correct one should read:
SIP/2.0/UDP 1.2.3.4;foo=bar;bar=baz vs. SIP/2.0/UDP 1.2.3.4;bar=baz;foo=bar On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Maxim Sobolev <sobo...@sippysoft.com> wrote: > Hi everybody, > > We came across a device that inserts some non-standard parameter into one > of the Via headers of request and has an issue dealing with situation when > this parameter is moved by our UAS to a different position of that > particular Via header in the response. Therefore, my question is: are we > actually required to preserve order of parameters in each Via or not? The > RFC is not very clear on that matter, all it says is: > > 8.2.6.2 Headers and Tags > > [...] > > response MUST equal the CSeq field of the request. The Via header > field values in the response MUST equal the Via header field values > in the request and MUST maintain the same ordering. > > To me, this boils down to the question of what we call "equal" field values, > can the field values below be considered equal: > > SIP/2.0/UDP 1.2.3.4:foo=bar;bar=baz > > vs. > > SIP/2.0/UDP 1.2.3.4:bar=baz;foo=bar > > Speaking from experience, it's probably bad idea to bet on UAS keeping order > the same when developing your own UAC code, but if somebody decides to do it, > can they claim that you are violating RFC if you don't? > > Thanks! > > -Maxim > > -- Maksym Sobolyev Sippy Software, Inc. Internet Telephony (VoIP) Experts Tel (Canada): +1-778-783-0474 Tel (Toll-Free): +1-855-747-7779 Fax: +1-866-857-6942 Web: http://www.sippysoft.com MSN: sa...@sippysoft.com Skype: SippySoft _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
