>>I think it's a bad specification in RFC 3261. It defines parameters as: >> >> ;pname=pvalue
that's not true, the grammar says: other-param = pname [ "=" pvalue ] People should (generally) write their parsers from the grammar. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Iñaki Baz Castillo Sent: 27 November 2008 09:58 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] Why so many implementations expect ";lr=on" or "; lr=yes" instead of just "; lr"? El Jueves, 27 de Noviembre de 2008, Attila Sipos escribió: > I guess it's because just about all other parameters have a value, so > people wrote their parsers to expect ";some_parameter=some_value" and > then when they came across ";lr", they thought, "my parser won't like > this, so I'll just stick a value in there". I think it's a bad specification in RFC 3261. It defines parameters as: ;pname=pvalue so it makes no sense that also defines parameters with no value. -- 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
