See page 222 of rfc 3261 for definition of lr.
Only lr is required. This is correct since according to BNF it is not
necessary to have a r-value
uri-parameters = *( ";" uri-parameter)
uri-parameter = transport-param / user-param / method-param
/ ttl-param / maddr-param / lr-param / other-param
other-param = pname [ "=" pvalue ]
Salman
On Sat, 4 Oct 2003, Jan Janak wrote:
> I disagree. This ";lr=on" thing has been implemented in the server because
> of other implementations that do not implement loose routing correctly.
> So it is not about older implementations, it is about new
> implementations.
>
> Suprisingly many implementations cut off ;lr parameter (i.e. parameter
> without any value).
>
> The specification says:
>
> "If the route set is not empty, and the first URI in the route set contains
> the lr parameter"
>
> It doesn't say anything about the value of the parameter, you just need
> to see if there is the lr parameter or not. And ;lr=on certainly is the
> lr parameter as well as ;lr
>
> Some people complained that examples in the section contain ;lr only,
> but examples are just examples...
>
> Jan.
>
> On 02-10 13:47, Rob Phillips wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> > This is the fact:
> > When I connect with MS Messenger to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I get the following
> > 200 OK response:
> >
> > SIP/2.0 200 OK
> > Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 212.152.201.190:15448
> > Record-Route:
> > <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];ftag=acd8235d6b18416093ab224b18257dc7;lr=on>
> > From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
> > <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;tag=acd8235d6b18416093ab224b18257dc7;epid=5bbb18
> > e48e
> > To: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;tag=as75f23980
> > Call-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > CSeq: 2 INVITE
> > User-Agent: Asterisk PBX
> > Contact: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:5028>
> > Content-Type: application/sdp
> > Content-Length: 187
> >
> > v=0
> > o=root 7610 7610 IN IP4 65.39.205.112
> > s=session
> > c=IN IP4 65.39.205.112
> > t=0 0
> > m=audio 5438 RTP/AVP 3 101
> > a=rtpmap:3 GSM/8000
> > a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000
> > a=fmtp:101 0-16
> >
> >
> > If you look at the Record-Route Header you can see "lr=on", which I assume
> > should mean the lr-param. But this is obviously not recognized as the
> > lr-param by MS messenger, because it does not place the remote target URI
> > into the request URI of ACK. Instead it pushes the remote target URI into
> > the Route header and uses the top URI from the route set as the request URI,
> > because it supposes the next proxy is a strict router:
> >
> >
> > ACK sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];ftag=acd8235d6b18416093ab224b18257dc7;lr=on
> > SIP/2.0
> > Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 212.152.201.190:15448
> > Max-Forwards: 70
> > From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
> > <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;tag=acd8235d6b18416093ab224b18257dc7;epid=5bbb18
> > e48e
> > To: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;tag=as75f23980
> > Call-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > CSeq: 2 ACK
> > Route: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:5028>
> > User-Agent: RTC/1.2
> > Content-Length: 0
> >
> > I am not an expert in BNF, but the question is:
> > Is "lr=on" a correct syntax for the lr-param?
> >
> >
> > Any help is appreciated.
> >
> > Franz
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sip-implementors mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sip-implementors mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
> _______________________________________________
> Sip-implementors mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
>
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
