On 19/05/14 10:01, Alex Hermann wrote:
On Friday 16 May 2014 20:15:11 Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
Thanks for this information, clear with comparison. However, more
specific to what I am looking for:
If I add in INVITE:
Record-Route:
Is allowed to the other party to set next header in BY
Hello,
On 17/05/14 06:50, Juha Heinanen wrote:
daniel,
how is kamailio doing regarding param case-insensitivity (uri_param,
check_route_param functions, uri param and parameter list
transformations, etc)? they should all be case-insensitive.
iirc, we looked at some point over them and they are
On Friday 16 May 2014 20:15:11 Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
> Thanks for this information, clear with comparison. However, more
> specific to what I am looking for:
>
> If I add in INVITE:
>
> Record-Route:
>
> Is allowed to the other party to set next header in BYE?
>
> Route:
RFC 3261
daniel,
how is kamailio doing regarding param case-insensitivity (uri_param,
check_route_param functions, uri param and parameter list
transformations, etc)? they should all be case-insensitive.
-- juha
___
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenS
On 16/05/14 20:26, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
Thanks for this information, clear with comparison. However, more
specific to what I am looking for:
If I add in INVITE:
Record-Route:
Is allowed to the other party to set next header in BYE?
Route:
my interpretati
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
> Thanks for this information, clear with comparison. However, more
> specific to what I am looking for:
>
> If I add in INVITE:
>
> Record-Route:
>
> Is allowed to the other party to set next header in BYE?
>
> Route:
my interpretation is that that is allo
Thanks for this information, clear with comparison. However, more
specific to what I am looking for:
If I add in INVITE:
Record-Route:
Is allowed to the other party to set next header in BYE?
Route:
Cheers,
Daniel
On 16/05/14 19:56, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
