On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Adam Newman <[email protected]> wrote: > > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="utf-8" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > Organization: SipXecs Forum > In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> > X-FUDforum: 08063afcdd00a6e76393c5b9527381e8 <66816> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > > > > *Bump* > > Please note that I have been scouring the issue tracker for > this problem and all I can see is that SIPXecs has been made > to meet RFC 2617. I couldn't find any reference to > backward-compatibility with RFC 2069, with the exception of > the quote in my previous post which was done (exactly) two > years ago to the day. > > I'm quite new to sipfoundry so please let me know if there > is something obvious that I am missing here. Should I raise > this as a bug on the issue tracker? Any help would be much > appreciated.
You probably stumbled on a misinterpretation of RFC by sipXecs. Thanks for your diligence referencing the RFC doc. If you can chase down code and determine a safe way to make it optional, we can get it into code. _______________________________________________ sipx-users mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
