On 02/10/2016 02:21 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
Charitably, it may have been an attempt to apply Postel's Maxim, but
maybe in an inconsistent way at two different points in the code.
It seems to me to be a very wanting attempt to apply the Maxim, but this
is where my experience with the methodolo
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Alex Balashov
wrote:
> Seems one can't win. There's got to be a reason this option came about.
> However, it's been around for a long time, and may date back to the mid
> 2000s...
>
> Any empirical knowledge of whether there remain UAs out there nowadays
> that do
On 2/10/16 1:58 PM, Alex Balashov wrote:
Fair enough. But it seems a bit schizophrenic of this particular implementation to
apply the 'lr" grammar strictly, but then consume the route set anyway (as
indicated by improper inclusion of Route headers from B in the BYE), albeit not
actually follo
Fair enough. But it seems a bit schizophrenic of this particular
implementation to apply the 'lr" grammar strictly, but then consume the route
set anyway (as indicated by improper inclusion of Route headers from B in the
BYE), albeit not actually follow it properly.
--
Alex Balashov | Principa
On 2/10/16 1:38 PM, Alex Balashov wrote:
From a methodological point of view, I am curious:
If the 'lr' parameter has a value assignment, is UA B truly justified in
ignoring the route set categorically?
Or is that one of those things where behaviour for improperly formed tokens is
undefined?
From a methodological point of view, I am curious:
If the 'lr' parameter has a value assignment, is UA B truly justified in
ignoring the route set categorically?
Or is that one of those things where behaviour for improperly formed tokens is
undefined?
--
Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste S
[Robert - question here for you]
On 2/10/16 11:20 AM, Alex Balashov wrote:
Thanks, Paul. FWIW, B is strictly a UA, not a part-time proxy.
The implementors of A have traced the problem to P's attachment of a value to
the ;lr parameter in the RR:
Record-Route:
They say that's the cause of th
Thanks, Paul. FWIW, B is strictly a UA, not a part-time proxy.
The implementors of A have traced the problem to P's attachment of a value to
the ;lr parameter in the RR:
Record-Route:
They say that's the cause of the breakage.
This view is certainly supported by RFC 3261; its grammar clearly
On 2/9/16 8:58 PM, Alex Balashov wrote:
Hi,
1. I set up a call between two UAs through a proxy:
UAC A > Proxy P1 -> UAS B
2. P1 inserts a Record-Route header indicating that sequential requests
should be directed through it.
3. UAS B does not follow Record-Route properly and, upon
Ankur,
On 02/10/2016 02:01 AM, ankur bansal wrote:
UA will accept it if dialog params matches and its an in dialog request
.Both UA have their own view of dialog information which should be same
ideally but its not checked if request received is from same UAS/proxy
(as per route set stored in d
Thanks a lot.
Even I feel anchoring node should validate the
"access-type"/"access-class".
and check the length of the "access-info".
Thanks
Basu
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Amardeep wrote:
> Hi Basu,
>
> Yes, PVNI header must needed to be validated by Anchoring node.
> For LTE., eNode o
11 matches
Mail list logo
