Not entirely true!
Although RFC3261 section 19.1.1 did `indicate' ";lr=on", section 25.1 have the following BNF notation.
uri-parameters = *( ";" uri-parameter) uri-parameter = transport-param / user-param / method-param / ttl-param / maddr-param / lr-param / other-param lr-param = "lr" other-param = pname [ "=" pvalue ]
So ";lr" is the correct BNF. However, I would agree that ";lr=on" is a more elegant approach.
BTW, SER accept both, and generate ";lr" by default. To get SER generate ";lr=on", check the enable_full_lr parameter in rr module.
Zeus
-----Original Message----- From: serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Java Rockx Sent: Friday, 25 February 2005 4:06 PM To: serusers@lists.iptel.org Subject: [Serusers] ;lr=on> versus ;lr> -- which is RFC3261 compliant?
Hi all.
We have a partner with a Sonus box that we use for PSTN termination.
Their Sonus box produces suspect Record-Route headers. Can anyone tell me if it is compliant with RFC3261?
A sample header that I receive looks like this:
Record-Route: sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:5060;lr
And I discovered that Asterisk-1.0.2 seems to not properly handle these messages so it does strict routing rather than loose routing.
Greg greger@teigre.com was kind enough to point me to RFC3261 Section 19.1.1 which seems to indicate that ;lr> should be ;lr=on> for complance.
Is this correct?
Regards, Paul
Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers