12 Jan
2004
12 Jan
'04
12:40 a.m.
Jamin,
It's a bug in ser which was introduced when we wanted to make ser more
interoperable with implementations that remove unknown parameters from
Record-Route header fields. I will revert the changes and that will eliminate
the problem with Snom.
Thanks for the report.
Jan.
On 22-12 16:24, Jan Janak wrote:
On 22-12 07:57, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
I took a look at the specification, but
didn't see anything (from my
limited understanding) that would indicate that Snom was doing anything
against the spec. So, if (and I know it's a big if with my
understanding of SIP and the spec) they are within the spec then
wouldn't it need to be SER that made the change?
I am not sure about this yet. As far as I know nobody else is
using preloaded route set this way. I have to review the spec
thoroughly. Anyway I will get back to it after the holidays.
Jan.
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers