Refer RFC 3261, Section 7.3.1
Each of the following blocks is valid but not equivalent to the
others:
Route: <sip:[email protected]>
Route: <sip:[email protected]>
Route: <sip:[email protected]>
Route: <sip:[email protected]>
Route: <sip:[email protected]>
Route: <sip:[email protected]>
Route: <sip:[email protected]>,<sip:[email protected]>,
<sip:[email protected]>
..
..
Even though an arbitrary number of parameter pairs may be attached to
a header field value, any given parameter-name MUST NOT appear more
than once.
IMO, 2 RRs are valid, however 2 lr's are not. However, from implementation
perspective, you can chose to ignore the duplicate parameter value.
Regards,
Tarun Gupta
Aricent
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of William
Scott
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 11:34 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Sip-implementors] Route-Record
Hi,
I have a ATA that produces...
Record-Route: <sip:202.85.243.105;lr;lr>
Record-Route: <sip:202.85.243.105:5070;lr;lr>
in the 200 OK reply to an INVITE.
Good, bad or doesn't matter?
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
===============================================================================
Please refer to http://www.aricent.com/legal/email_disclaimer.html
for important disclosures regarding this electronic communication.
===============================================================================
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/sip-implementors
