I can see that RFC 3261 defines it correctly
uri-parameter = transport-param / user-param / method-param
/ ttl-param / maddr-param / lr-param / other-param
lr-param = "lr"
Even other-param is defined as follows (with optional value parameter)
other-param = pname [ "=" pvalue ]
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
