> >
> > It seems to me that byte-by-byte is more robust and easier to
> > compare in
> > terms of "From" and "To" headers. What are the potential reasons that
> > somebody wants to modify these two headers in addition to the
> > "Tag" param?
>
> The problem has to do with storing whitespace on other formatting > >characters
> when parsing. I'd like to be able to parse a header, discard any LWS, and
> reconstruct the header. This should be "equivalent" based on concrete
I thought URLs cannot have whitespace, so I am not convinced
about a proxy/ua messing around with From/To except appending
a tag.
While we are here, I posted some questions several times on
the sip-implementors about transaction identification, but
nobody responded.
If To header tag is included in the hash computation, then
ACK for a INVITE will identify a transaction different from
the original INVITE. This is acceptable for an ACK for a 200,
but not for non-200 ACK ( proxy has to stop response retx timer).
If To header tag is not included then 2 different PRACKs will
hash to the same transaction.
> matching rules, to the initial version.
>
> -Jonathan R.
>
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
