Hi, If you see the BNF, it states clearly
lr-param = "lr" So exactly "lr =On | Off" is incorrect syntax. You should not have looked into the defintion of other-param. Also in the examples of RecordRoutes it states ";lr" only in section 16.12.1.1 Thx Samir -----Original Message----- From: Salman Abdul Baset [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 3:51 PM To: Jan Janak Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Is "lr=on" a correct syntax for the lr-param? See page 222 of rfc 3261 for definition of lr. Only lr is required. This is correct since according to BNF it is not necessary to have a r-value uri-parameters = *( ";" uri-parameter) uri-parameter = transport-param / user-param / method-param / ttl-param / maddr-param / lr-param / other-param other-param = pname [ "=" pvalue ] Salman On Sat, 4 Oct 2003, Jan Janak wrote: > I disagree. This ";lr=on" thing has been implemented in the server because > of other implementations that do not implement loose routing correctly. > So it is not about older implementations, it is about new > implementations. > > Suprisingly many implementations cut off ;lr parameter (i.e. parameter > without any value). > > The specification says: > > "If the route set is not empty, and the first URI in the route set contains > the lr parameter" > > It doesn't say anything about the value of the parameter, you just need > to see if there is the lr parameter or not. And ;lr=on certainly is the > lr parameter as well as ;lr > > Some people complained that examples in the section contain ;lr only, > but examples are just examples... > > Jan. > > On 02-10 13:47, Rob Phillips wrote: > > No, it's not. The correct BNF position per 3261 is "lr", although some older implementations have been known to use variations. > > > > - rob > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Franz Edler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 1:45 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: [Sip-implementors] Is "lr=on" a correct syntax for the > > lr-param? > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > I need the help of experts in identifying which side is correct and which > > side has a bug: > > Microsoft Messenger 5.0 or Free World Dialup Server (0.8.11rc3) > > > > The problem is the interpretation of the lr-param in the route set. > > > > This is the fact: > > When I connect with MS Messenger to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I get the following > > 200 OK response: > > > > SIP/2.0 200 OK > > Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 212.152.201.190:15448 > > Record-Route: > > <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];ftag=acd8235d6b18416093ab224b18257dc7;lr=on> > > From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > > <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;tag=acd8235d6b18416093ab224b18257dc7;epid=5b bb18 > > e48e > > To: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;tag=as75f23980 > > Call-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > CSeq: 2 INVITE > > User-Agent: Asterisk PBX > > Contact: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:5028> > > Content-Type: application/sdp > > Content-Length: 187 > > > > v=0 > > o=root 7610 7610 IN IP4 65.39.205.112 > > s=session > > c=IN IP4 65.39.205.112 > > t=0 0 > > m=audio 5438 RTP/AVP 3 101 > > a=rtpmap:3 GSM/8000 > > a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000 > > a=fmtp:101 0-16 > > > > > > If you look at the Record-Route Header you can see "lr=on", which I assume > > should mean the lr-param. But this is obviously not recognized as the > > lr-param by MS messenger, because it does not place the remote target URI > > into the request URI of ACK. Instead it pushes the remote target URI into > > the Route header and uses the top URI from the route set as the request URI, > > because it supposes the next proxy is a strict router: > > > > > > ACK sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];ftag=acd8235d6b18416093ab224b18257dc7;lr=on > > SIP/2.0 > > Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 212.152.201.190:15448 > > Max-Forwards: 70 > > From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > > <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;tag=acd8235d6b18416093ab224b18257dc7;epid=5b bb18 > > e48e > > To: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;tag=as75f23980 > > Call-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > CSeq: 2 ACK > > Route: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:5028> > > User-Agent: RTC/1.2 > > Content-Length: 0 > > > > I am not an expert in BNF, but the question is: > > Is "lr=on" a correct syntax for the lr-param? > > > > > > Any help is appreciated. > > > > Franz > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sip-implementors mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sip-implementors mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors > _______________________________________________ > Sip-implementors mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors > _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
