[Serusers] ;lr=on> versus ;lr> -- which is RFC3261 compliant?

[Jiri Kuthan]

Both are correct, ;lr (without =true) is a more intutive choice as it is
used in all specs. Implementations which can't deal with either of them are
to be fixed. SER can choose either, but chance is high that each choice will
not work with some subset of imperfect implementations.

-jiri

At 06:05 AM 2/25/2005, Java Rockx wrote:
>Hi all.
>
>We have a partner with a Sonus box that we use for PSTN termination.
>
>Their Sonus box produces suspect Record-Route headers. Can anyone tell
>me if it is compliant with RFC3261?
>
>A sample header that I receive looks like this:
>
>Record-Route: <sip:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:5060;lr>
>
>And I discovered that Asterisk-1.0.2 seems to not properly handle
>these messages so it does strict routing rather than loose routing.
>
>Greg greger at teigre.com was kind enough to point me to RFC3261 Section
>19.1.1 which seems to indicate that ;lr> should be ;lr=on> for
>complance.
>
>Is this correct?
>
>Regards,
>Paul
>
>_______________________________________________
>Serusers mailing list
>serusers at lists.iptel.org
>http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers

--
Jiri Kuthan            http://iptel.org/~jiri/