Hi Peter, You're correct that their implementation does not follow the syntax for rfc 5806. Though I'm not really sure how much scrutiny that draft received.
Is it a real problem? Probably not as I'd be willing to bet most implementations used the same parsing routines for the Diversion header as they would for any other header that contains a name-addr, which all that I can think of that allow multiple header lines also allow combining into one single header line separated by commas. I would think a programmer was rather odd if they chose to write a new parsing routing for name-addr headers that only allowed exactly 1 name-addr per header line. If you're just concerned with pointing out the problem to Broadsoft, then yes you have a valid point as there may be an odd device out there that followed the header syntax exactly. This would lead to interop problems. If Broadsoft were smart about interop they'd just put each Diversion name-addr on a separate line to avoid any such problem. I'd imagine they were looking to save space though. I hope I could help, Brandon On 04/03/2012 10:43 PM, Peter Childs wrote: > I notice that our BroadSoft AS platform on a multiple diverted call sends the > following to a Network element, where it appears two Diversion are > concatenated into a single Diversion: header as follows. > > Diversion:"NodePhone"<sip:[email protected];user=phone>;privacy=full;reason=unconditional;counter=1,"NodePhone"<sip:[email protected];user=phone>;privacy=full;reason=unconditional;counter=1 > > Most examples in for example draft-levy-sip-diversion/RFC5806 where multiple > diversions exist show multiple Headers, one for each diversion. > > I did notice that in RFC3261 7.3 Headers Fields the following > > <quote> > That applies to SIP as well, but the specific rule is different because of > the different grammars. Specifically, any SIP > header whose grammar is of the form > > header = "header-name" HCOLON header-value *(COMMA header-value) > > allows for combining header fields of the same name into a comma-separated > list. > </quote> > > I note whilst RFC4244 for History-Info has (4.1) > > History-Info = "History-Info" HCOLON > hi-entry *(COMMA hi-entry) > > That RFC5806 for Diversion has (4) > > Diversion = "Diversion" ":" 1# (name-addr *( ";" diversion_params )) > > My question is does BroadSoft's use of combining multiple Diversions in a > single Diversion Header appear to follow RFC5806? > > Thanks for your consideration. > > Cheers, > Peter > > -- > Peter Childs - Voice Engineer > Internode/Agile > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
