Be strict when sending something, be tolerant accepting stuff! I think it was not a bright idea to introduce the lr flag without anything. It saves two bytes and it creates big interop problems.
By sending lr=on you don�t break old SIP implementations which did not follow the above rule. Lets hope that new implementations are more tolerant. CS > -----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:sip-implementors- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von Rob Phillips > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 2. Oktober 2003 20:48 > An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Betreff: RE: [Sip-implementors] Is "lr=on" a correct syntax for the lr- > param? > > No, it's not. The correct BNF position per 3261 is "lr", although some > older implementations have been known to use variations. > > - rob > > -----Original Message----- > From: Franz Edler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 1:45 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Sip-implementors] Is "lr=on" a correct syntax for the > lr-param? > > > Hi all, > > I need the help of experts in identifying which side is correct and which > side has a bug: > Microsoft Messenger 5.0 or Free World Dialup Server (0.8.11rc3) > > The problem is the interpretation of the lr-param in the route set. > > ... _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
