El Jueves, 11 de Septiembre de 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: > Whether the wording of the RFC needs to be corrected depends on the > precise usage of the words. > > The confusion arises because the RFC presupposes the concept that for > certain headers, the *list* of values in all of the headers of that > type is significant, but which values are in which particular header > is not significant. An *unspoken* consequence of that is that if the > list of value is empty, then no headers of that type are present. > (The syntax of those headers does not allow writing a header with no > values.)
Yes, but there is a section in which I think there is not justification: But RFC 3261 says: --------------------- 10.2 Constructing the REGISTER Request Contact: REGISTER requests MAY contain a Contact header field with zero or more values containing address bindings. -------------------- I think "Contact header field with zero..." means a Contact header with empty value, and not the absense of Contact header, don't you think? Please read also the mail sent to IETF SIP maillist, it has sumarized all the problem: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip/current/msg24683.html Thanks a lot. -- Iñaki Baz Castillo _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
