On Thursday 31 January 2008 16:53:39 Jonathan Lennox wrote: > It was certainly my intention, when writing the CPL RFC, that <otherwise> > should match whenever any previous condition did not -- i.e., it would be > the equivalent of a default: rule in a C switch statement. In a switch > rule with an <otherwise> output, the processor's default action should > never be invoked. > > In other words, yes, I agree with your analysis; the behavior you've > documented in OpenSER is a bug.
Thanks a lot for your confirmation. PD:I don't know how much possible is changing a RFC but I'd suggest to make it clearer, for example by adding your phrase somewhere: "In a switch rule with an <otherwise> output the processor's default action should never be invoked." Again thanks a lot for your help. Best regards. -- Iñaki Baz Castillo [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
