From: "Nir Hasson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:example.com%3E SIP/2.0
(Why is "SIP/2.0" present?) I believe the problem is in reference to this paragraph in RFC 3261 section 19.1.5: An implementation SHOULD NOT honor any requested Route header field values in order to not be used as an unwitting agent in malicious attacks. However I have heard arguments that there are valid use-cases for Route as a header parameter. Dale _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
