When I first encounter the issue is interworking with openser server, which adds lr=on, but I don't know who is the original author of this behavior.
Regards, -Rockson -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of I?aki Baz Castillo Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 5:42 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [Sip-implementors] Why so many implementations expect "; lr=on" or ";lr=yes" instead of just "; lr"? Hi, AFAIK loose routing is exclusively defined in RFC 3261, and it's clear and explained in *all* the examples and BNF section that "lr" has no value: lr-param = "lr" <sip:proxy1>,<sip:proxy2>,<sip:proxy3;lr>,<sip:proxy4> So I wonder why there are various SIP devices that only do loose route if the Route/Record-Route header has a parameter like: ;lr=on ;lr=yes Of course it's a vendor issue, but... why is this error so common? any historic reason I miss? Thanks. -- Iñaki Baz Castillo _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
