Jeroen van Bemmel wrote:
> see RFC3455 http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3455.txt section 4.5.2.3 Examples of
> Usage message F2 (P-Charging-Function-Addresses)
>
> Not recommended though - it violates RFC3261
Right. There is semantic, not syntactic (its not in ABNF) requirement in
3261 that parameters be unique. And I know of stack implementations that
depend on this.
Paul
> Regards,
> Jeroen
>
>
> Nap wrote:
>> Is there a precedence somewhere of a SIP header with a multivalued
>> parameter (not header).
>>
>> An example could be -
>>
>> Some-Header: Value;p1=pvalue1;p1=pvalue2;p1=pvalue3 etc [Note name of
>> param is p1 only]
>>
>> Alternatively I could think of -
>>
>> Some-Header: Value;p1=pvalue1|pvalue2|pvlaue3 with a special
>> separator like a PIPE.
>>
>> If someone has seen this kind of BNF in any draft or RFC then it will
>> immensely help.
>>
>> Thanks
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sip-implementors mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sip-implementors mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
>
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
