21 Sep
2004
21 Sep
'04
11:05 a.m.
At 10:38 AM 9/21/2004, Martin Koenig wrote:
Gateway complains about the white space at the max fwd
header field and
rejects the call.
Dirty Workaround is to use mf_process_maxfwd_header("9"), but this only
works if the Max-Forwards Field is not already present.
Question 1: Is this a bug?
It is a bug.
Shouldn't the white space be removed after
processing the header field?
no, it is a bug in the gatway -- it must honor whitespaces, see RFC3261.
Question 2: Shouldn't the Max-Forwards Field be
either appended before or
after all of the Record-Route Fields?
RFC3261 no way dictates order of header fields. It recommends to put
proxy-processed elemeents in beginning of the message, which we do.
-jiri