1 Jun
2004
1 Jun
'04
1:48 p.m.
Hi,
It seems SER doesn't parse a route header like this:
Route: sip:5555@10.2.2.2;lr=on;ftag=10af7dc2db05
because it isn't enclosed with < >. Is this behavior correct, according the
RFC3261?
Debug output:
15(6201) parse_nameaddr(): No < found
15(6201) parse_rr(): Error while parsing name-addr
15(6201) find_first_route(): Error while parsing Route HF
15(6201) loose_route(): There is no Route HF
Best regards
1 Jun
1 Jun
3 p.m.
Yes, that is correct. RFC3261 contains the following grammar for Route
header fields:
Route = "Route" HCOLON route-param *(COMMA route-param)
route-param = name-addr *( SEMI rr-param )
and name-addr non-terminal expands to:
name-addr = [ display-name ] LAQUOT addr-spec RAQUOT
As you can see, LAQUOT and RAQUOT are mandatory.
Jan.
On 01-06 12:48, Gustavo García Bernardo wrote:
Hi,
It seems SER doesn't parse a route header like this:
Route: sip:5555@10.2.2.2;lr=on;ftag=10af7dc2db05
because it isn't enclosed with < >. Is this behavior correct, according the
RFC3261?
Debug output:
15(6201) parse_nameaddr(): No < found
15(6201) parse_rr(): Error while parsing name-addr
15(6201) find_first_route(): Error while parsing Route HF
15(6201) loose_route(): There is no Route HF
Best regards
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
7482
days inactive
7482
days old
1 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Gustavo García Bernardo -
Jan Janak