Re: [Serusers] Maxforwards problem

At 10:38 AM 9/21/2004, Martin Koenig wrote:

Gateway complains about the white space at the max fwd header field and rejects the call. Dirty Workaround is to use mf_process_maxfwd_header("9"), but this only works if the Max-Forwards Field is not already present.

Question 1: Is this a bug?

It is a bug.

Shouldn't the white space be removed after processing the header field?

no, it is a bug in the gatway -- it must honor whitespaces, see RFC3261.

Question 2: Shouldn't the Max-Forwards Field be either appended before or after all of the Record-Route Fields?

RFC3261 no way dictates order of header fields. It recommends to put proxy-processed elemeents in beginning of the message, which we do.

-jiri