RE: [Sip] Backward incompatibity in Via header grammar.

["Drage, Keith (Keith)" <drage@lucent.com>]

Backward compatibility or incompatibility is assessed against previously published versions of the RFCs, i.e. RFC 2543 to RFC 3261.

 

Compatibility problems with anyone who implements an internet draft, i.e. work in progress, lie with whoever decided not to wait for the published RFC.

 

However the BNF you quote does appear in RFC 2543. I do not know the reason why it was removed, but I would note that there has been a general cleaning up of comment usage throughout RFC 3261 from RFC 2543, and not in this header alone.

 

Keith

 

Keith Drage
Lucent Technologies
Tel: +44 1793 776249
Email: drage@lucent.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Sachin Shenoy [mailto:sachins@netlab.hcltech.com]
Sent: 14 October 2002 06:42
To: sip@ietf.org
Subject: [Sip] Backward incompatibity in Via header grammar.

Hi,

According to bis-02 & bis-05 the grammar of Via is following.

Via = ( "Via" | "v" ) HCOLON

1#( sent-protocol sent-by

*( SEMI via-params ) [ comment ] )

It allows for comment to be present in Via header.

 

But according to the new RFC, this is the grammar,

Via = ( "Via" / "v" ) HCOLON via-parm *(COMMA via-parm)

Which doesn't allow for comment.

 

Won't this cause backward incompatablity. (Any old proxy

which inserts comment in Via can cause serious problems for

new implementation).

 

Thanks

Sachin