At 09:07 PM 10/6/2003, Paul Kyzivat wrote: >When I see something using "lr=on", I am inclined to think that I may also see >"lr=off" in some other context. > >Its easy to treat "lr=X" the same as "lr" regardless of X. Its less easy to >distinguish one unspecified set of values that mean TRUE from another unspecified >set of values that mean FALSE.
Oh, I now see where the confusion comes from -- I never tried to think of processing the value whereas others did. Well, I think that robust implementations test presence of lr parameter and ignore value, be it there too or not. (RFC3261 speaks about lr _presence_ too: "The lr parameter, when present, indicates that the element responsible for this resource implements the routing mechanisms specified in this document." S. 19.1) Also, I think that robust iplementations piggy-back the parameter "as is". >Does anything known *ever* use "lr=X" for some value of X other than "on"? I'm not aware of any such which would show a value with negative meaning. -jiri _______________________________________________ Sip-implementors mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
