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

[Zeus Ng]

Not entirely true!

Although RFC3261 section 19.1.1 did `indicate' ";lr=on", section 25.1 have
the following BNF notation.

uri-parameters    =  *( ";" uri-parameter)
uri-parameter     =  transport-param / user-param / method-param
                     / ttl-param / maddr-param / lr-param / other-param
lr-param          = "lr"
other-param       = pname [ "=" pvalue ]


So ";lr" is the correct BNF. However, I would agree that ";lr=on" is a more
elegant approach.

BTW, SER accept both, and generate ";lr" by default. To get SER generate
";lr=on", check the enable_full_lr parameter in rr module.

Zeus

> -----Original Message-----
> From: serusers-bounces at lists.iptel.org 
> [mailto:serusers-bounces at lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of Java Rockx
> Sent: Friday, 25 February 2005 4:06 PM
> To: serusers at lists.iptel.org
> Subject: [Serusers] ;lr=on> versus ;lr> -- which is RFC3261 compliant?
> 
> 
> 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
>