Inaki, I pinged you since you may be more familiar with procedures about all this IETF output, but maybe others here can provide useful information as well.

At this moment the parser in Kamailio for Diversion header considers it as with similar format as To header.

Diversion (defined in an *Historic* rfc5806) is obsoleted by History-Info(*Standard track* rfc4244). Its definition in rfc5806 is:

Diversion = "Diversion" ":" 1# (name-addr *( ";" diversion_params ))

and it is like To header. However, a newer *Informational* rfc6044, redefines Diversion as:

Diversion = "Diversion" HCOLON diversion-params
                                 *(COMMA diversion-params)

diversion-params    = name-addr *(SEMI (diversion-reason /
                          diversion-counter / diversion-limit /
                          diversion-privacy / diversion-screen /

So in rfc6044, the sintax allow comma separated bodies for one Diversion header, which was not in rfc5806. Obviously, the current diversion parser throws error, so I guess it has to be updated to accept a format similar to Route headers.

My question is, apart of rfc number and the policy more recent (bigger values) obsoletes older (lower value) specification, does the Informational or Historic category to set some extra rules?

Btw, are people here still using (or ever used -- I didn't so far) Diversion?


Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- http://www.asipto.com
http://linkedin.com/in/miconda -- http://twitter.com/miconda