(replying to my own message, below) Adam Roach wrote:
> Vijay K. Gurbani wrote: > >> Adam Roach wrote: >> >>> In practice, the received parameter is interpreted *almost* exclusively >>> by the entity that wrote it -- so interoperability shouldn't be as >>> substantially harmed by differing interpretations than might it first >>> appear. >> >> >> >> That depends. A proxy that inserts a received parameter and *then* >> forwards the request to the next downstream server may cause some >> concern to the receiving server. The specific behavior we have >> observed is that the next downstream server is unable to parse the >> request because of the brackets in the topmost Via "received" >> parameter that were added by the previous upstream entity. > > > > Why are they parsing anything but the topmost Via header field? It > seems a waste of processing time to parse the entire stack of Vias. To make sure we're not talking past each other: if a proxy inserts a "received" parameter and then forwards the request WITHOUT ADDING ITS OWN VIA HEADER FIELD on top of the one that it tagged with "received", then it's broken. If a proxy is slapping "received" parameters on the topmost Via header field that they just added, then it is similarly broken. Now, the *upstream* server may have some issues in parsing the Via header field in responses (and I called this out in my previous message), but the contents of the "received" parameter really shouldn't be of any concern to them (unless they're using the "received" parameter for STUN-like functionality, in which case I think the correct answer is "use STUN"). /a _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
