Paul Kyzivat <pkyzi...@alum.mit.edu> writes: > Maybe it would. But I think it is more than simply *my* interpretation.
I wasn't aware that there was such a specification. But I'm sure the horse is long since out of the barn in regard to un-registered parameters. (I once ran a script over a mailbox and discovered 900+ distinct "X-" headers in the messages!) The big problem is if people invent parameters, minimizing name collisions. In this case, the choice "i" is pessimal, because it would be so easy for others to make the same choice. Infinitely better would be something like "x-evaristesys-magic". Generally, we expect a Via header to be processed for understanding only by the device that generated it, but it's wise not to assume that. Roman Shpount <ro...@telurix.com> writes: > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Alex Balashov <abalas...@evaristesys.com> > wrote: >> That might conflict with the requirement that the branch parameter be a >> GUID. > > Via branch parameter is the transaction identifying parameter. Its format > and contents are implementation specific. There is no requirement for Via > branch (or SIP Call-ID for that matter) to be a GUID. All that is required > is that these parameters were unique. I think that Alex is using GUID to mean "globally unique identifier" rather than the specific form of globally unique identifier called "GUID". Dale _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
