Yes, that is correct. RFC3261 contains the following grammar for Route header fields:

Route = "Route" HCOLON route-param *(COMMA route-param) route-param = name-addr *( SEMI rr-param )

and name-addr non-terminal expands to:

name-addr = [ display-name ] LAQUOT addr-spec RAQUOT

As you can see, LAQUOT and RAQUOT are mandatory.

Jan.

On 01-06 12:48, Gustavo García Bernardo wrote:

Hi,

It seems SER doesn't parse a route header like this:

Route: sip:5555@10.2.2.2;lr=on;ftag=10af7dc2db05

because it isn't enclosed with < >. Is this behavior correct, according the RFC3261?

Debug output: 15(6201) parse_nameaddr(): No < found 15(6201) parse_rr(): Error while parsing name-addr 15(6201) find_first_route(): Error while parsing Route HF 15(6201) loose_route(): There is no Route HF

Best regards

---

Serusers mailing list serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers