On Mon, 2009-06-01 at 11:49 -0400, Dale Worley wrote: > On Mon, 2009-06-01 at 10:01 -0400, Scott Lawrence wrote: > > The > > presence or absence of the port number should not be a problem (the > > comparison function adjusts for that). > > I'm starting to remember that, that at least in some circumstances, the > test for URI equality will accept port number 5060 as equivalent to a > missing port number in situations where RFC 3261 would say that they are > not. But perhaps that process is not doing what we think it does?
There's even a more specific (and permissive) function when you're comparing for domain identity purposes. _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
