Litty Preeth wrote: > My next question is about the q value of the Contact > header. Which contact should i be giving more priority, one > with a q value or the one without it. I meant, shall i > assign a default q value suppose 0.8 for all the contacts > without q values and then sort them accordingly or i sort > the contacts with q value first and then consider the ones > without priorities assigned as having least priority.
There appears to be little in RFC3261 about the q-value. But I found one interesting extract from Section 10.2.1.2: The "q" parameter indicates a relative preference for the particular Contact header field value compared to other bindings for this address-of-record. Section 16.6 describes how a proxy server uses this preference indication. To me, the phrase 'relative preference' suggests that URIs without a q-value should be treated as having an implicit q-value of 1. Unless anyone has any spec references to show how to handle this case in a different way, then I think that this argument makes the case for 1 stronger than for any other value (e.g. 0.8). Regards, Michael Procter _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
