6 May
2003
6 May
'03
3:04 p.m.
On 06-05 08:01, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Jan Janak writes:
No, I am not sure. I saw user agents doing very strange stuff so I
am pretty sure that there will be at least one which will not handle
this correctly.
The spec says that UAs should look if there is an lr parameter in
URI and, IMHO, ;lr=on counts too because it is lr parameter, it just
doesn't have empty body (but why would UAs look into the body when
they just need to know if there is such parameter or not ?).
Anyway, if you find a UA that doesn't work with lr=on, please report
it to me.
Jan.
But there are some user agents that strip the
lr parameter when
generating Route header fields (i.e. Record-Route contained lr
parameter but Route created by the user-agent didn't). If that is your
case then you can use modparam("rr", "enable_full_route", 1) which
will insert ;lr=on instead of just ;lr which worked for us.
lr=on may help in case of broken UAs, but are you sure that all RFC3261
compliant AUs will understand lr=on as the lr parameter?