Hi Expert,

I found the problem. Thanks for making comment on my request.

BR///

Rakesh Kumar Mohanty

On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 7:36 AM, Dale R. Worley <wor...@ariadne.com> wrote:

> Paul Kyzivat <pkyzi...@alum.mit.edu> writes:
> >> Contact: ""
> >> <sip:+12345@179.18.39.29:36948;transport=udp;Hpt=8ea2_16;ssn;srti=s1_2>
> >> Contact: ""
> >> <sip:+12345@179.18.39.29:36948;transport=udp;Hpt=8ea2_16;
> ssn;srti=s1_2;TRC=ffffffff-ffffffff>
> >
> > What leads you to this conclusion? Parameter order is never relevant.
>
> Specifically, a little earlier in section 19.1.4 is:
>
>       o  The ordering of parameters and header fields is not significant
>          in comparing SIP and SIPS URIs.
>
> >> I am facing an issue on which the contact URI comparison has happened
> and
> >> it fails due to the TRC parameter not in order which I guess so far.
>
> By the rules of 3261, these two URIs are equivalent.
>
> Dale
>
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
Sip-implementors@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors

Reply via email to