Are you talking about the RLS patch for scalability? Or another one? On 9/3/10, Jean-Hugues Royer <[email protected]> wrote: > Yup, that's why my original report sentence was: > > "Finally the RLS is not compliant with RFC4662 (and even RFC3261) > because it only accepts subscription with a single "Accept" line" > > We will try out this new patch and let you know if we find any other > issue... > > Regards. > > Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote: >> BTW, the reason that multiple Accept lines *must* be accepted is not the >> RFC 4662 examples (because examples aren't specifications), but rather >> this passage in RFC 3261 section 7.3: >> > _______________________________________________ > sipx-dev mailing list > [email protected] > List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev/ >
-- Sent from my mobile device ====================== Tony Graziano, Manager Telephone: 434.984.8430 sip: [email protected] Fax: 434.984.8431 Email: [email protected] LAN/Telephony/Security and Control Systems Helpdesk: Telephone: 434.984.8426 sip: [email protected] Fax: 434.984.8427 Helpdesk Contract Customers: http://www.myitdepartment.net/gethelp/ Why do mathematicians always confuse Halloween and Christmas? Because 31 Oct = 25 Dec. _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev/
