I respectfully disagree on that, there are many places throughout RFC where
"header field values" refer specifically to the whole part after "Foo:",
not just some piece of it (see my other message with a specific example
referring to Vias). In fact I think "Via header" is kinda jargon, which if
defined properly consists of "Via header field name" + ":" + "Via header
field value". Bear in mind that header field name part is kinda
superfluous, you can have multiple values following the same name, i.e.:
Route: <sip:al...@atlanta.com>, <sip:b...@biloxi.com>,
<sip:ca...@chicago.com>
So preserving order is actually meaningful for values, not so much for the
full name+values. The following is equivalent in terms of the ordering
requirements for field values:
Route: <sip:al...@atlanta.com>
Route: <sip:b...@biloxi.com>,
<sip:ca...@chicago.com>
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 4:38 PM, David Cunningham <dcunning...@voisonics.com>
wrote:
> If it had started "The Via headers in the response..." then I would agree
> with you.
>
> But it starts "The Via header field values in the response" so I interpret
> that to mean the order of the values within each individual Via header.
>
> I believe the order of the Via headers is dealt with in a different part
> of the RFC which describes when and where Via headers are added.
>
>
> On 6 October 2015 at 10:23, Maxim Sobolev <sobo...@sippysoft.com> wrote:
>
>> David, IMHO that "same ordering" clause refers to the "header values"
>> (i.e. individual "via" lines), not to the order of parameters within ONE
>> header value. Order of values is important, because it defines your return
>> path. Which is why the clause is there, I believe. Order of parameters on
>> the other hand has no particular meaning.
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 4:18 PM, David Cunningham <
>> dcunning...@voisonics.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Maxim,
>>>
>>> Surely it says in the text you've quoted "and MUST maintain the same
>>> ordering"?
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6 October 2015 at 10:10, Maxim Sobolev <sobo...@sippysoft.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> David Cunningham, Voisonics
>>> http://voisonics.com/
>>> USA: +1 213 221 1092
>>> UK: +44 (0) 20 3298 1642
>>> Australia: +61 (0) 2 8063 9019
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> David Cunningham, Voisonics
> http://voisonics.com/
> USA: +1 213 221 1092
> UK: +44 (0) 20 3298 1642
> Australia: +61 (0) 2 8063 9019
>
--
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
